MA S TER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-80709 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the  ,^ 

"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  ~  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material.. 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  ftilfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


TITLE: 


ORDER  OF  CREATION 


PLACE: 


NEW  YORK 


DA  TE : 


1886 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  # 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


mmmmmmr}''^ 


^mm 


^,  ,  ■     W.  E.  f  William  Ewart)  .  1809-1898 • 
Gladstone,  •Wi444ftm--5wQrt i  lQ00-l60Q, 

The  order  of  creation;  the  conflict  between 
Genesis  and  geology.  A  controversy  between  the 
Hon.  V/.  E.  Gladstone,  Prof.  T.  H.  Huxley,  Prof. 
Max  Miiller,  M.  Reville ,  E.  Lynn  Linton.   New 
York,  Tho  Truth  seeker  co.,  £18863 

178  p.        11>^  cm. 


i^2ni^^ 


o 


nfri 


FILM     SIZE: 3_5 

IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA 
DATE      FILMED 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 


'^^ 


REDUCTION     RATIO: 


ilx 


NT:    lA    OIA)    IB     IIB  -    ., 

:4_  ll-S^ INITIALS__:(!lJcl 

HLMEDBY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRIDGE.  CT 


r 


Association  for  information  and  Image  IManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring.  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


^ 


.;> 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 


m 


IlllilllllllllilllllllllUllllll 


rrr 


4         5        6 

iliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilii 


ill 


I  I  I 


8        9        10       11 

mhmMMjmiliiiiliiiJ 


12       13       14       15    mm 

IllllllllllUlllllllliillllllllll 


m 


1 


Inches 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


U&  1  2.8 

2.5 

16.3 

It  i^ 

2.2 
2.0 

1.8 

1.4 

1.6 

MflNUFfiCTURED   TO   flllM   STfiNDfiRDS 
BY   nPPLIED   IMAGE-    INC. 


i^jHr^T^f^fBi^iHTBi^f^f^i^LrBi^j^j 


¥=^>g>g>^E>^>^>^>g>g>^>g>g>^>gH 


■■.if-';W 


•».« 


^Orde^ 


OF 


-J-GpiTIOi].^ 


Gladstons, 
I7UXLEY, 

y^Ut  KJ  LA  i^  'ill  i\j 

I^BYILLE, 

LilNTON. 


mm 


mmmmmm    ^am^m^      _^_^ „___ — "  ■"  ■■'""  M'l'Miww.-gnA"'  »^ 


mnass^'- 


For  reserve  use  only 


Hi 


) 


S*^- 


i'omitv 


LIBRARY 


GIVEN  BY 

THOMAS  WRIGHT 
1932 


I 


ill 


l^ 


iSi 


•  «  »     » 

r  (      • 


•      •  «   • 


•»  • 


•    »       ' 


1      * 


I         « 


C.+5  5 


ti^sL^^I^-jLi.- 


SPECIAL  NOTICE. 


All  JiM. -,^ -(•;il.il.».i;ue(i  in  tin.--  volume  will  nt*  .■,vij)|»lie(l 
!)>('.  P.  Fahrei.l.  IJonksellfr  an»l  Importer  and  j;»»neral 
dealer  in  Liberal,  Sclent ifie.  Pro^jresRive  and  Reform 
works,  at  the  regular  prices,  postage  or  exjn'ess  prepaid, 
Lil)eral  discounts  to  dealers  Libraries  and  buyers  of 
htMks  in  <|u;intities,  submit  your  lists  to  me  for  special 
prices  before  buying  elsewhere.  My  stock  is  always 
Iresh  and  new.  I  prefer  to  deal  direct  with  the  reader 
rather  than  the  •lealei'  -^  it  is  f;i  ft  i«>n  guar;int^^etl  m  ;ill 
S'Mid  f'^r  ratal»»-(i.- 

Address 

FARKKLL. 

22n  Maih^on  AVI.  , 


( ; 


N.    1'.  — uni>     lUthorizt'd   r'ublisher  of   C«>i.   Kr»l.»ert 
IngersoU's  writings.     (Jive  mc    i  -fiance.     On**-    i 


customei'  always  a  customer. 


H. 


^> 


i 


THE 


ORDER  OF  CREATION 


THE 


CONFLICT  BETWEEN  GENESIS 
AND  GEOLOGY. 


4    C^C\NTR6VERsy  'BETWEEN    THE 

HoN.W. E.GLADSTONE,    Prof.  MAX  MULLER, 

•  '  •    <  »  % 

Prof.  T.i  H.:HlixLEY,  M. '  REV  Ii^LE, 

•  *  •    •  '  ..■''. 

E.   LYNN   LINTON. 


•  >  *  ■. 
«  1  •  I 

•  >  J    • 

•  *  •    »  » I ' 


New  York: 

THE  TRUTH   SEEKER  COMPANY, 

28  Lafayette  Place, 


V 


CONTENTS. 


Dawn  of  Creation  and  of  Worship.    By  TTon.  W.  E. 

GL.VDSTONE,  .  .  .  •  • 

The  Interprelcr-H  d  Gt-nosls  and  the  Inlrrpreters  of 
Nature.     13 v  Prof.  T.  II.  IIixi.ey,      . 

Pot^tscript  to  Solar  Myths.    15y  Prof.  3Iax  IMIjm.ek, 

'^^^<ji:rii  to  GoncsH:  A  Plea  for  a  Fair  Trial.    By  P.on. 
W.  E.  Gladstone,  .  .  .  - 

*' Dawn  of  Creation"— An  Answer  to  3Ir.  Gladstone. 
By  Albekt  Kkville,  D.D.,     . 

Mr.  Gladstone  and  Genesis.    By  Prof.  T.  11.  IIuxlky, 

A  Protest  and  a  Plea.    By  Mrs.  K.  Lvnn  Linton, 


5 

43 

64 

70 

107 
134 
IGl 


THE  ORDER  OF  CREATION' 


PAWJ>f'  OF  CREATION  AND   OF  WORSHIP. 

BY    W.    E.    GLADSTONE. 

Among  recent  works  on  the  origin  and  history  of 
religions  by  distinguished  authors,  a  somewhat  con- 
spicuous place  may  be  awarded  to  the  FroVegombies 
de  r  Ilistorie  des  Jleligions,  by  Dr.  Keville,  profes- 
sor in  the  College  of  France,  and  Hibbert  Lecturer 
in  1884.  The  volume  has  been  translated  into 
English  by  Mr.  Squire,  and  the  translation*  comes 
forth  with  all  the  advantage,  and  it  is  great,  which 
can  be  conferred  by  an  introduction  from  the  pen  of 
Professor  Max  Mtiller.  It  appears,  if  I  may  presume 
to  speak  of  it,  to  be  characterized,  among  other 
merits,  by  marked  ingenuity  and  acuteness,  breadth 
of  field,  great  felicity  of  phrase,  evident  candor  of  in- 
tention, and  abundant  courtesy. 

Whether  its  contents  are  properly  placed  as  prol- 
egomena may  at  once  be  questioned ;  for  surely  the 
proper  office  of  prolegomena  is  to  present  prelimi- 
naiies,  and  not  results.  Such  is  not,  however,  the  aim 
of  this  work.  It  starts  from  assuming  the  subject- 
ive origin  of  all  religions,  which  are  viewed  as  so 

*  In  his  Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Religwns.  My  refer- 
ences tliroughout  are  to  the  translation  by  Mr.  Squire  (Wil- 
liams &  Norgate,  1884). 


f 


6  THE  ORDER  OF  CREATION. 

many  answers  to  tlie  call  of  a  strong  human  appetite 
for  that  kind  of  food,  and  arc  examined  as  the  several 
varieties  of  one  and  the  same  species.  The  conclusions 
of  opposing  inquirers,  however,  are  not  left  to  be  con- 
futed by  a  collection  of  facts  and  testimonies  drara 
from  historical  investigation,  but  are  thrust  out  of  the 
way  beforehand  in  the  prefaco  (for,  after  ii\\  lyrolegom- 
ena  can  bo  nothing  but  a  les 3  homely  phrase  for  a  pref- 
ace).     These  inquirers  are  so  many  pretenders,  who 
have  obstructed  the  passage  of  the  rightful  heir  to 
his  thi-one,  and  they  are  to  bo  put  summarily  out  of 
the  way   as   distuibers  of   the   pu/)iic  peace.      The 
method  pursued  appears  to  be  not  to  allow  the  facts 
and  arguments  to  dispose  of  them,  but  to  condemn 
them  before  the  cause  is  heard.     I  do  not  know  how 
to  reconcile  this  method  with  Dr.  R^vilic's  declai'a- 
tion  that  he  aims  at  proceeding  in  a  '^stiictly  scientific 
spirit."     It  might  be  held  that  such  a  spirit  required 
the  regular  presentation  of  the  evidence  before  the 
delivery  of  the  verdict  upon  it.     In  any  case  I  vent- 
ure to  observe  that  these  are  not  truly  i>roZ.-/o;>Ac;ir/, 
but  epllcgomeyia  to  a  history  of  religions  not  yet 

placed  before  us. 

The  first  enemy  whom  Dr.  Roville  dispatches  is 
M.  de  Bonald,  as  the  champion  of  the  doctrine  that 
*•  in  the  very  beginning  of  the  human  race  the  creat- 
ive power  revealed  to  the  first  men  by  supernatural 
means  the  essential  principles  of  religious  truth;| 
together  with  *' language  and  even  the  art  of  writing" 

(pp.  35,  3G). 

In  passing.  Dr.  Eeville  observes  that  "  the  religious 
schools,  which  maintain  the  trulh  of  a  primitive 
revelation,  ai-e  guided  by  a  very  evident  theological 
interest"    {Ibid.)',    the    Protestant,   to    fortify    the 


\ 


DAWN  OF  CRKVTION  AND  OF  WORSHIP.  7 

authority  of  the  Bible ;  and  the  Roman  Cathohc,  to 
prop  the  infallibility  of  the  chui'ch. 

It  is  doubtless  true  that  the  doctrine  of  a  prim^ 
itive  revelation  tends  to  fortify  the  authority.of  re- 
hgion.  But  is  it  not  equally  true,  and  equally 
obvious,  that  the  denial  of  a  primitive  revelation  tends 
to  undermine  it?  and,  if  so,  might  it  not  be  retorted 
upon  the  school  of  Dr.  Reville  that  the  schools  which 
deny  a  primitive  revelation  are  guided  by  a  very  evi- 
dent anti- theological  interest? 

Against  this  antagonist  Dr.  Reville  observes,  inter 
alia  (p.  37),  that  an  appeal  to  the  supernatural  i^per 
se  inadmissible ;  that  a  divine  revelation,  containing 
the  sublime  doctrines  of  the  purest  inspiration,  given 
to  man  at  an  age  indefinitely  remote,  and  in  a  state 
of  "absolute  ignorance,"  is  "infinitely  hard"  to  im- 
agine; that  it  is  not  favored  by  analogy;  and  that  it 
contradicts  all  that  we  know  of  prehistoric  man  (p. 
40).  Thus  far  it  might  perhaps  be  contended  in  re- 
ply, (1)  that  the  prehminary  objection  to  the  super- 
natural is  a  pure  petltlo  princlpll,  and  wholly  re- 
pugnant to  "scientific  method;"  (2)  that  it  is  not 
inconceivable  that  revelation  might  be  indefinitely 
graduated,  as  well  as  human  knowledge  and  condi- 
tion; (3)  that  it  is  in  no  way  repugnant  to  analogy,  if 
the  greatest  master  of  analogy.  Bishop  Butler 
{Analog I/,  P.  II.  ch.  ii.  §  2)  may  be  heard  upon 
the  subject;  and  (4)  that  our  earhest  information 
about  the  races  from  which  we  are  least  remote, 
Aryan,  Semitic,  Accadian,  or  Egyptian,  ofi'ers  no  con- 
tradiction and  no  obstacle  to  the  idea  of  their  havmg 
received,  or  inherited,  portions  of  some  knowledge 
divinely  revealed. 

But  I  do  not  now  enter  upon  these  topics,  as  I 


8 


THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 


have  a  more  immediate  and  defined  concern  with  the 
work  of  Dr.  Reville. 

It  only  came  within  the  last  few  months  to  my 
knowledge  that,  at  a  period  when  my  cares  and 
labors  of  a  distinct  order  were  much  too  absorbing 
to  allow  of  any  attention  to  archeological  history, 
Dr.  Reville  had  done  me  the  honor  to  select  me  as 
the  representative  of  those  writers  who  find  waiTant 
for  the  assertion  of  a  primitive  revelation  in  the  tes- 
timony of  the  holy  scriptures. 

This  is  a  distinction  which  I  do  not  at  all  deserve ; 
first,  because  Dr.  Reville  might  have  placed  in  the 
field  champions  much  more  competent  and  learned* 
than  myself;  secondly,  because  I  have  never  at- 
tempted to  give  the  proof  of  such  a  waiTant.  I 
have  never  written  exprofesso  on  the  subject  of  it; 
but  it  is  true  that  in  a  work  published  nearly  thirty 
yeai's  ago,  when  destinictive  criticism  was  less  ad- 
vanced than  it  is  now,  I  assumed  it  as  a  thing  gener- 
ally received,  at  least  in  this  covmtry.  Upon  some  of 
the  points  which  group  themselves  round  that  as- 
sumption my  views,  like  those  of  many  other  inquir- 
ers, have  been  stated  more  crudely  at  an  early,  and 
more  maturely  at  more  than  one  later  period.  I 
admit  that  vaiiation  or  development  imposes  a 
hardship  upon  critics,  notwithstanding  all  their 
desire  to  be  just;  especially,  may  I  say,  upon  such 
critics  as,  traversing  gi*ound  of  almost  boundless  ex- 
tent, can  hardly,  except  in  the  rarest  cases,  be  mi- 
nutely and  closely  acquainted  with  every  portion 
of  it. 


*  I  will  only  name  one  of  the  most  recent,  Dr.  Reusch,  the 
author  of  ''  Bibel  undNatur"  (Bonn,  1876). 


DAWN   OF    CREATION   AND    OF   WORSHIP. 


9 


I  also  admit  to  Dr.  Reville,  and  indeed  I  contend 
by  his  side,  that  in  a  historical  inquiry  the  author- 
ity of  scripture  cannot  be  alleged  in  proof  of  the  ex- 
istence of  a  primitive  revelation.  So  to  allege  it  is  a 
preHminary  assumption  of  the  supernatural,  and  is, 
in  my  view,  a  manifest  departure  from  the  laws  of 
"  scientific"  procedure;  as  palpable  a  departure,  may 
I  venture  to  say,  as-that  preliminary  exclusion  of  the 
supematm'al  which  I  hav«  already  presumed  to 
notice.  My  own  oflfense,  if  it  be  one,  was  of  another 
chai'acter;  and  was  committed  in  the  eai'ly  days  of 
Homeric  study,  when  my  eyes,  perhaps,  were  dazzled 
with  the  amazing  richness  and  variety  of  the  results 
which  reward  all  close  investigation  of  the  text  of 
Homer,  so  that  objects  were  blurred  for  a  time  in  my 
view,  which  soon  came  to  stand  more  clear  before  me. 

I  had  better,  perhaps,  state  at  once  what  my  con- 
tention really  is.  It  is,  first,  that  many  important 
pictures  draw^n  and  indications  given  in  the  Homeric 
poems  supply  evidence  that  cannot  be  confuted  not 
only  of  an  ideal,  but  of  a  historical  relationship  to 
the  Hebrew  traditions,  (1)  and  mainly,  as  they  are 
recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis ;  (2)  as  less  authen- 
tically to  be  gathered  from  the  later  Hebrew  learn- 
ing ;  (3)  as  illustrated  from  extraneous  sources.  Sec- 
ondly, any  attempt  to  expound  the  Olympian  myth- 
ology of  Homer  by  simple  reference  to  a  solar  theory, 
or  even  to  nature- worship  in  a  larger  sense,  is  simply 
a  plea  for  a  verdict  against  the  evidence.  It  is  also 
true  that  I  have  an  unshaken  beHef  in  a  divine  revela- 
tion, not  resting  on  assumption,  but  made  obHgatory 
upon  me  by  reason.  But  I  hold  the  last  of  these 
convictions  entirely  apai't  from  the  others,  and  I  de- 
rived the  first  and  second  not  from  preconception,  of 


10 


THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 


which  I  had  not  a  grain,  but  from  the  poems  them- 
selves, as  purely  as  I  derived  my  knowledge  of  the 
Peloponnesian  war  from  Thucydides,  or  his  inter- 
preters. 

The  great  importance  of  this  contention  I  do  not 
deny.  I  have  produced  in  its  favor  a  great  mass  of 
evidence,  which,  as  far  as  I  have  seen,  there  has  been 
no  serious  endeavor,  if,  indeed,  any  endeavor,  to  repel. 
Dr.  EeviHe  observes  that  my  views  have  been  sub- 
jected to  "  very  profound  criticism  "  by  Sir  G.  Cox, 
in  his  learned  work  on  Ai'yan  mythology  (p.  41). 
That  is,  indeed,  a  very  able  criticism,  but  it  is  ad- 
di-essod  entirely  to  the  statements  of  my  eai'liest 
Homeric  work.*  Now,  apart  from  the  question 
whether  those  statements  have  been  rightly  under- 
stood (which  I  cannot  admit),  that  which  he  attacks 
is  beyond  and  outside  of  the  proposition  which  I  have 
given  above.  Sir  G.  Cox  has  not  attempted  to  de- 
cide the  question  whether  there  was  a  primitive  reve- 
lation, or  whether  it  may  be  traced  in  Homer.  And  I 
may  say  that  I  am  myself  so  little  satisfied  with  the 
precise  foim  in  which  my  general  conclusions  were 
originally  clothed  that  T  have  net  repiinted  and  shall 
not  reprint  Ihe  work,  which  has  become  very  rare, 
only  appealing  now  and  then  in  some  catalogue,  and 
at  a  high  price.  When  there  are  representatives,  liv- 
ing and  awake,  why  disturb  the  ashes  of  the  dead? 
In  later  works,  reaching  from  1865  to  1875,t  I  have 

*  "  Studies  on  Homer  and  the  Homeric  Age.  3  vols.  Ox- 
ford, IboS. 

t"  Address  to  the  University  of  Edinburgh"  (Murray, 
18G5);  ''Juventus  Mundi"  (Macniillan,  18G8) ;  ''Primer  of 
Homer"  (Macniillan,  1878);  especially  see  Preface  to  "  Ju> 
ventusMundi,"  p.  i. 


DAV.N    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSmP. 


11 


confessed  to  the  modification  of  my  results,  and  have 
stated  the  case  in  terms  which  appear  to  me,  using 
the  common  phrase,  to  be  those  yielded  by  the  legit- 
imate study  of  comparative  religion.  But  why  should 
those  who  think  it  a  sound  method  of  comparative 
rehgion  to  match  together  the  Vedas,  the  Norse 
legends,  and  the  Egyptian  remains,  think  it  to  be  no 
process  of  comparative  rehgion  to  bring  together, 
not  vaguely  and  loosely,  but  in  seai'ching  detail,  cer- 
tain traditions  of  the  book  of  Genesis  and  those  re- 
corded in  the  Homeric  Poems,  and  to  argue  that  theii* 
resemblances  may  afi'ord  proof  of  a  common  origin, 
without  any  anticipatory  assumption  as  to  what  that 
oiigin  may  be ? 

It  will  hardly  excite  surprise,  after  what  has  now 
been  written,  when  I  say  I  am  unable  to  accept  as 
mine  any  one  of  the  jn-opositions  which  Dr.  Reville  (pp. 
41-2)  affiliates  to  me.  (1)  I  do  not  hold  that  there 
was  a  "  systematic  "  or  wilful  corruption  of  a  primitive 
religion.  (2)  I  do  not  hold  that  all  the  mythologies 
are  due  to  any  such  corruption,  systematic  or  other- 
wise. (3)  I  do  not  hold  that  no  part  of  them  sprang 
out  of  the  deification  of  natural  facts.  (4)  I  do  not 
hold  that  the  ideas  conveyed  in  the  book  of  Genesis, 
or  in  any  Hebrew  tradition,  were  developed  in  the 
form  of  dogma,  as  is  said  by  Sir  G.  Cox,  or  in  "  six 
great  doctrines  "  as  is  conceived  by  Dr.  Reville ;  and 
(5)  I  am  so  far  from  ever  having  held  that  there  was 
a  "primitive  orthodoxy"  revealed  to  the  first  men 
(p.  43)  that  I  have  carefully  from  the  first  refen-ed 
not  to  developed  doctrine,  but  to  rudimentary  indi- 
cations of  what  are  now  developed  and  estabhshed 
truths.  So  that,  although  Dr.  Reville  asks  n  e  for 
proof,  I  dechne  to  supply  proofs  of  what  I  disbe- 


12 


THE   ORDER   OF   CREATION. 


lieve.  Wliat  I  have  supplied  proofs  of  is  the 
appearance  in  the  Poems  of  a  number  of  traits,  in- 
congruous in  various  degrees  with  their  immediate 
environment,  but  having  such  maiked  and  character- 
istic resemblances  to  the  Hebrew  tradition  as  to 
require  of  us,  in  the  character  of  rational  inquirers, 
the  admission  of  a  common  origin,  just  as  the  ^mark- 
ings  which  we  sometimes  notice  upon  the  coats  of 
horses  and  donkeys  are  held  to  requii'e  the  admission 
of  their  relationship  to  the  zebra. 

It  thus  appears  that  Dr.  Reville  has  dischai'ged  his 
pistol  in  the  air,  for  my  Homeric  propositions  involve 
DO  aM;um]>tioD  luk  to  a  TtfHMkm  contmncd  iu  the 
book  of  Gcnctiis,  whil^i  he  hMexproft9SO  oouttftfied 
my  KUkUitncnim  of  a  bLstonod  roUtionKhip  Lciweeu 
80Cn4^  tnulitionn  of  that  book  nod  ilw^o  of  the  Homeric 
poems.  But  I  will  now  bnefly  eiamine  (1)  the  num- 
zicr  in  which  Dr.  lU'ivillo  liAodUstt  tliebookof  Geooadsi, 
aimI  (2)  the  manner  in  'which  ha  uiHkrtakofl,  by  wi^ 
of  ii|)ecimeiit  to  construe  the  mythology  of  Houmt, 
and  ciiliM  It^  by  compomon,  in  the  impport  of  his 
syietem  of  iutorpretalion.  And  iin«t  with  the  flni- 
naiDod  of  thcso  tvro  subjedn 

Fntcring  n  piuteei  a^painsi  amigmng  to  the  boolc 
*' a dictatoriiil  authority;'  that  is,  I  preanme, againai 
ita  containing  a  divine  revefaitSon  to  anybody,  lui 
passes  on  to  examino  itn  eoutonta  It  contains,  bo 
Mkjv,  adentific  errors,  of  which  (p.  '1*2,  «.)  he  apecUKee 
tlucc.  Hiu  cbiurgee  are  that  (!)  it  KpcukB  of  tbo 
beavrn  a.s  a  Kolid  vault ;  (2)  it  plarcs  the  creation  of 
the  stars  after  that  of  the  eartb,  and  so  plucea  thorn 
aolely  for  its  use ;  (3)  it  introducea  the  T<tgotab!e 
kingdom  before  that  kingdom  could  be  subjected  to 
the  action  of  solar  lighL    All  these  oopdwnnations 


DAVrS   OF    CREATION   AND   OF   "WORSHIP. 


18 


are  quietly  enunciated  in  a  note,  as  if  they  were  Bub- 
ject  to  no  dispute.     Ijc.t  us  soo. 

As  to  the  first ;  if  our  Hcholars  ai*o  right  in  their 
judgment,  just  made  known  to  the  world  by  tho 
recent  revision  of  the  Old  Testament,  the  **  jGbrma- 
ment "  is,  in  tho  Hebrew  original,  -not  a  sohd  vault, 
but  an  expanse.  As  to  thcs  necond  (a)  it  is  not  said 
in  the  sacred  text  tlmt  tho  stiirw  wv.n)  mude  solely  for 
the  use  of  the  earth  ;  (f*)  it  is  tni*-  tlmt  no  other  uho 
is  mentioned.  But  we  must  horo  iiujuire  what  wiw 
the  purpose  of  the  nan*ative  t  Not  to  re^u*  cosmic 
philosophers,  but  to  furnish  ordinary  men  with  Bomo 
idea  of  what  tho  Creator  had  done  in  the  way  of 
proriding  for  them  a  home,  and  giving  them  a  plncn 
in  nature.  The  tidvuntage  afforded  by  tl>e  stars  to 
them  is  named  ulouc,  they  having  no  interest  in  any 
other  pnrpoNc  for  which  the  stars  may  exist 

The  assertioai  that  tho  nUn  are  vtut<H!  to  have  beeii 
**  created  "  after  the  earth  w  more  scriouM.  But  hero 
it  beoomea  necMonry  first  of  aU  to  notice  the  recital 
in  tliis  ]>art  of  the  indictment*  In  the  langxiage  of 
I>r.  Kevillc,  tho  book  apeaka  of  the  creation  of  the 
fliaiB  after  the  formation  of  the  earth.  Now.  curiously 
enovigh,  the  book  says  nothing cdtber  of  the  **  forma- 
tion "  of  tlio  cai'th,  or  of  the  **  creation  "  of  the  stars. 
It  says  in  its  first  line  thai  ^^  in  tlie  beginning  Ood 
created  the  heaven  and  the  earth.**  It  saya  further 
on  (OeiL  I  W),  '*  He  mado  the  stars  ah^o/*  Can  it  be 
ur^^cd  that  this  is  a  fanciful  distinction  between 
creating'  ou  the  one  hand^  and  making*  forming,  or 
fashioning  on  the  other  t  I>ante  did  not  tliink  so,  for 
speaking  of  the  di\ine  will,  ho  nay*: 

(^o  cir  yXiA  crU,  e  Clio  Xntura  face.— iViradKi^,  ^87. 


11 


THE    OKDER    OF    CREATION. 


Luther  did  not  tliink  so,  for  he  uses  sehn/ia  the  first 
verse,  and  machte  in  the  sixteenth.  The  English 
translators  and  then-  revisers  did  not  think  so,  for 
they  use  the  words  "created"  and  ''made"  in  the 
two  passages  respectively.  The  main  question,  how- 
ever, is  what  did  the  author  of  the  book  tliink,  and 
what  did  he  intend  to  convey  ?  The  LXX  drew  no 
distinction,  probably  for  the  simple  reason  that,  as 
the  idea  of  creation  proper  was  not  familial*  to  the 
Greeks,  their  language  conveyed  no  word  better  than 
2)oiein  to  express  it,  which  is  also  the  proper  word 
for  fashioning  or  making.  But  the  Hebrew,  it  seems, 
had  the  distinction,  and  by  the  writer  of  Genesis  i  it 
has  been  strictly,  to  Dr.  Reville  I  might  almost  say 
scientifically,  followed.  He  uses  the  word  "  created" 
on  the  three  grand  occasions  (1)  of  the  beguming  of 
the  mighty  work  (v.  1) ;  (2)  of  the  beginning  of  ani- 
mal life  (v.  21)  "And  God  created  great  whales,"  and 
every  living  creature  that  peoples  the  waters ;  (3)  of 
•the  yet  more  important  beginning  of  rational  and 
spiritual  life;  "so  God  created  man  in  his  own 
image"  (v.  27).  In  every  other  instance  the  simple 
command  is  recited,  or  a  word  implying  less  than 
creation  is  employed.    .  ^ 

From  this  very  marked  mode  of  use,  it  is  surely 
plain  that  a  marked  distinction  of  sense  was  intended 
by  the  sacred  writer.  I  will  not  attempt  a  definition 
of  the  distinction  further  than  this,  that  the  one 
phrase  points  more  to  calling  into  a  sepai'ate  or  indi- 
vidual existence,  the  other  more  to  shaping  and 
fashioning  the  conditions  of  that  existence ;  the  one 
to  quid,  the  other  to  quale.  Oui*  earth,  created  in 
V.  1,  undergoes  structural  change,  different  aiTange- 
ment  of  material,  in  v.  9.  After  this,  and  in  the  fourth 


DAWN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP 


15 


day,  comes  not  the  original  creation,  but  the  location 
in  tiie  firmament  of  the  sun  and  the  moon.     On  their 
"  creation  "  nothmg  pai'ticular  has  been  said ;   for  no 
use,  palpable  to  man,  was  associated  with  it  before 
their  perfect  equipment.     Does  it  not  seem  aUowable 
to  suppose  that  in  the  "heavens"*  (v.  1),  of  which 
after  the  first  outset  we  hear  no  more,  were  included 
the  heavenly  bodies  ?    In  any  case  what  is  af  terwai'ds 
conveyed  is  not  the  caUing  mto  existence  of  the  sun 
and  moon,  but  the  assignment  to  them  of  a  certain 
place    and    orbit    respectively,   with   a  hght-giying 
power.     Is   there    the    smallest    inconsistency  in  a 
statement  which  places  the  emergence  of  our  land, 
and  its  separation  from  the  sea,  and  the  commence- 
ment  of   vegetable  life,   before    the   final   and  full 
concentration  of  light  upon  the  sun,  and  its  reflection 
on  the  moon  and  the  planets  ?     In  the  gradual  sever- 
ance of  other  elements  would  not  the  severance  of  the 
luminous  body,  or  force,  be  gi'adual  also  ?    And  why, 
let  me  ask  of  Dr.  Reville,  as  there  would  plainly  be 
hght  diffused  before  there  was  hght  concentrated, 
why  may  not  that  hght  diffused  have  been  sufficient 
for  the  purposes  of  vegetation  ?    There  was  soil,  there 
was  atmosi:>here,  there  was  moistui-e,  there  was  light. 
What  more  could  be  requh-ed  ?    Need  we  go  beyond 
our  constant  experience  to  be  aware  that  the  process 
of  vegetation,  though  it  may  be  suspended,  is  not 
arrested,  when,  through  the  presence  of  cloud  and 


*In  our  translation,  and  in  the  recent  revision,  the  singular 
is  used.  But  we  are  assured  that  the  Hebrew  word  is  plural 
(Bishop  of  Winchester  on  Genesis  i,  1,  in  the  Speaker's  Bible). 
If  so  taken,  we  have  the  creation,  visible  to  us,  treated  con- 
jointly  in  verses  1-5,  distributively  m  verses  6-19  ;  surely  a 
most  orderly  arrangement. 


16 


THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 


vapor,  the  sun's  globe  becomes  to  us  in\dsible  1  The 
same  observations  apply  to  the  hght  of  the  planets ; 
while  as  to  the  other  stars,  such  as  were  then  percep 
tible  to  the  human  eye,  we  know  nothing.  The 
planets,  bemg  luminous  bodies  only  through  the 
action  of  the  sun,  could  not  be  luminous  until  such  a 
degree  of  light,  or  of  light-force,  was  accumulated 
upon   or  in  the   sun,  as   to   make   them  luminous, 

instead  of  being 

silent  as  the  moon, 
When  she  deserts  the  night 
Hid  in  her  vacant  interlunar  cave. 

Is  it  not  then  the  fact,  thus  far,  that  the  impeachment 
of  the  book  has  fallen  to  the  ground  1    There  remains 
to  add  only  one  remark,  the  propriety  of  which  is,  I 
think,  indisputable.      Easy  comprehension  and  im- 
pressive force  aie  the  objects  to  be  aimed  at  in  a 
composition  at  once  popular  and  summary ;  but  these 
cannot  be  always  had  without  some  departure  from 
accurate  classification,  and  the  order  of  minute  detail. 
It  seems  much  more  easy  to  justify  the  language  of 
the  opening  verses  of  Genesis  than,  for  example,  the 
convenient  usage  by  which  we  affirm  that  the  sim 
rises,  or  mounts  above  the  horizon,  and  sets,  or  de- 
scends below  it,  when  we  know  perfectly  well  that 
he  does  neither  the  one  nor  the  other.     As  to  the 
third  charge  of  scientific  error,  that  the  vegetable 
kingdom  appeared  before  it  could  be  subjected  to  the 
action  of  solar  Hght,  it  has  been  virtually  disposed  of. 
If  the  light  now  appropriated  to  the  sun  alone  was 
gradually  gathering  toward  and  round  him,  why  may 
it  not  have  performed  its  proper  office  in  contributing 
to  vegetation  when  once  the  necessary  degree  of  sev- 
erance between  soHd  and  fluid,  between  wet  and  dry, 


DAWN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSHIP. 


IT 


had  been  effected?  And  this  is  just  what  had  been 
described  in  the  formation  of  the  firmament,  and  the 
separation  of  land  from  sea. 

More  singular  still  seems  to  be  the  next  observation 
offered  by  Dr.  Eeville  in  his  compound  labor  to  sat- 
isfy his  readers,  first,  that  there  is  no  revelation  in 
Genesis,  and   secondly  that,  if   there  be,  it  is   one 
which  has  no  serious  or  relevant  meaning.    He  comes 
to  the  remarkable  expression  in  v.  26,  "  Let  us  make 
man  in  our    own    image/'      There  has,   it  appears, 
been  much  difference  of  opinion  even  among  the  Jews 
on  the  meaning    of  this   verse.     The  Almighty  ad- 
di*esses,  as  some  think,  his  own  powers ;  as  others 
think,  the  angels ;  others,  the  earth ;   other  writers, 
especially,  as  it  appears,  Germans,  have  understood 
this  to  be  a  plural  of  dignity,  after  the  manner  of 
kings.     Others,  of  tte  rationalizing  school,  conceive 
the  word  Elohim  to  be  a  rehc  of  polytheism.     The 
ancient  Christian  int<Tpreters,*  from  the  apostle  Bar- 
nabas onward,  find  ii  \  these  words  an  indication  of  a 
plurality  in  the   diviue  imity.     Dr.    Keville   (p.  43) 
holds  that  this  is  "  simply  the  royal  plural  used  in 
Hebrew  as  in  many  other  languages,"  or  else,  "  and 
more  probably,"  that  it  is  an  appeal  to  the  Bene 
Elohim  or  angels.     But  is  not  this  latter  meaning  a 
direct  assault  upon  the  supreme  truth  of  the  unity  of 
God?    If  he  chooses  the  former,  from  whence  does 
he  derive  his  krowledge  that  this  "  royal  plural "  was 
used  in  HebT«,w  ?    Will  the  royal  plural  account  for 
(Gen.  iii,  22)  "  when  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us  ?  " 


*0n  this  expression,  I  refer  again  to  the  commentary  of 
Bishop  Harold  Browne.    Bishop  Mant  supplies  an  interest- 


ing U^t  of  testimonies. 


18 


THE  ORDER  OP  CREATION. 


and  would  George  11.,  if  saying  of  Charles  Edward 
"  the  man  is  become  as  one  of  us,"  have  intended  to 
convey  a  singular  or  a  plural  meaning  1  Can  we  dis- 
prove the  assertion  of  Bishop  Harold  Browne,  that 
this  plurality  of  dignity  is  unknown  to  the  language 
of  scripture?  And  further,  if  we  make  the  violent 
assumption  that  the  Christian  Church  with  its  one 
voice  is  wrong  and  Dr.  Reville  right,  and  that  the 
words  were  not  meant  to  convey  the  idea  of  plurahty, 
yet,  if  they  have  been  such  as  to  lead  all  Christendom 
to  see  in  them  this  idea  through  1,800  years,  how  can 
he  be  sure  that  they  did  not  convey  a  like  significa- 
tion to  the  earhest  hearers  or  readers  of  the  book  of 
Genesis  ? 

The  rest  of  Dr.  Reville' s  criticism  is  directed  rather 
to  the  significance  or  propriety  than  to  the  truth  of 
the  record.  It  is  not  necessary  to  follow  his  remarks 
in  detail,  but  it  will  help  the  reader  to  judge  how  far 
even  a  perfectly  upright  member  of  the  scientific  and 
comparative  school  can  indulge  an  unconscious  bias, 
if  notice  be  taken  in  a  single  instance  of  his  method 
of  comparing.  He  compares  together  the  two  parts 
of  the  prediction  that  the  seed  of  the  woman  shall 
bruise  the  head  of  the  serpent,  and  that  the  serpent 
shall  bruise  the  heel  of  the  seed  of  the  woman  (iii,  15) ; 
and  he  conceives  the  head  and  the  heel  to  be  so  much 
upon  a  par  in  theu'  relation  to  the  faculties  and  the 
vitality  of  a  man  that  he  can  find  here  nothing  to  in- 
dicate which  shall  get  the  better,  or,  in  his  own 
words,  *•  on  which  side  shall  be  the  final  victory " 
(p.  45).  St.  Paul  seems  to  have  taken  a  different  view 
when  he  wrote :  "  The  God  of  peace  shall  bruise 
Satan  under  your  feet  shortly  "  (Rom.  xvi,  20). 
Moreover,  *'our  author"  (in  Dr.  Reville's  phrase) 


DAWN    OF    CREATION   AND    OF    WORSHIP. 


19 


is  censured  because  he  "  takes  special  care  to  point 
out  [p.  44]  that  the  first  pair  are  as  yet  strangers  to 
the  most  elementary  notions  of  morality,"  inasmuch 
as  they  are  unclothed,  yet  without  shame ;  nay,  even 
as  he  feehngly  says,  "  without  the  least  shame."  In 
what  the  morality  of  the  first  pair  consisted,  this  is 
hardly  the  place  to  discuss.  But  let  us  suppose  for 
a  moment  that  then-  morahty  was  simply  the  morahty 
of  a  httle  child,  the  undeveloped  morality  of  obedi- 
ence, without  distinctly  fonned  conceptions  of  an 
ethical  or  abstract  standard.  Is  it  not  plain  that 
their  feelings  would  have  been  exactly  what  the  book 
describes  (Gen.  ii,  25),  and  yet  that  in  theu'  loving 
obedience  to  their  father  and  creator  they  would  cer- 
tainly have  had  a  germ,  let  me  say  an  opening  bud,  of 
morahty  ?  But  this  proposition,  taken  alone,  by  no 
means  does  justice  to  the  case.  Dr.  Reville  would  prob- 
ably put  a.«iide  with  indifference  or  contempt  all  that 
depends  upon  the  dogma  of  the  Fall.  And  yet  there 
can  be  no  more  rational  idea,  no  idea  more  palpably 
sustained,  whether  by  philosophy  or  by  experience. 
Namely,  this  idea :  that  the  commission  of  sin,  that 
is,  the  act  of  deliberately  breaking  a  known  law  of 
duty,  injures  the  nature  and  composition  of  the  being 
who  commits  it.  It  injui'es  that  nature  in  deranging 
it,  in  altering  the  proportion  of  its  pai'ts  and  powers, 
in  introducing  an  inward  disorder  and  rebellion  of  the 
lower  against  the  liigher,  too  mournfully  correspond- 
ing with  that  disorder  and  rebelhon  produced  with- 
out, as  toward  God,  of  which  the  first  sin  was  the 
fountain-head.  Such  is,  I  beHeve,  the  language  of 
Christian  theology,  and  in  particular  of  St.  Augus- 
tine, one  of  its  prime  masters.  On  this  matter  I  ap- 
prehend that  Dr.  Reville,  when  judging  the  author  of 


20 


THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 


Genesis,  judges  him  without  regard  to  his  fundamen- 
tal ideas  and  aims,  one  of  which  was  to  convey  that 
before  sinning  man  was  a  being  moraUy  and  physi- 
caUy  balanced,  and  nobly  pui-e  in  every  faculty ;  and 
that,  by  and  from  his  sinning,  the  sense  of  shame 
found  a  proper  and  necessary  place  in  a  nature  which 
before  was  only  open  to  the  sense  of  duty  and  of 

reverence. 

One  further  observation  only.     Dr.  RevHle  seems 
to  "  score  one  "  when  he  finds  (Gen.  iv,  2G)  that  Seth 
had  a  son,  and  that  'Hhen  began  men  to  call  on  the 
name  of  the  Lord;"  "  but  not,"  he  adds,  "  as  the  re- 
sult of  a  recorded  revelation."     Here  at  last  he  has 
found,  or  seemed  to  find,  the  beginning  of  rehgion, 
and  that  beginning  subjective,  not  revealed.     So  has- 
tily, from  the  first  aspect  of  the  text,  does  he  gather 
a  verbal  advantage,  which,  upon  the  shghtest  inquiry, 
would  have  disappeared  hke  dew  in  the  morning  sun. 
He  assumes  the  rendering  of  a  text  which  has  been 
the  subject  of  every  kind  of  question  and  dispute, 
the  only  thing  apparently  agreed  on  being  that  his 
interpretation  is  wholly  excluded.     Upon  a  disputed 
original,    and  a  disputed  interi^retation  of    the   dis- 
puted original,  he  founds  a  signification  in  flat  con- 
tradiction to  the  whole  of  the  former  naiTative,  to 
Elohist  and  Jehovist  alike ;  which  narrative,  if  it  rep- 
resents anything,  represents   a  continuity  of  active 
reciprocal  relation  between  God  and  man  both  before 
and  after  the  transgression.     Not  to  mention  differ- 
erences  of  translation,  which  essentially  change  the 
meaning  of  the  words,  the  text  itself  is  given  by  the 
double  authority  of  the  Samaiitan  Pentateuch*  and 


*  3vv  Bishop  of  Winchester's  "  Comment arv." 


DAWN  OP  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


21 


of  the  Septuagint  in  the  singular  number,  which  of 
itself  wholly  destroys  the  construction  of  Dr.  Reville. 
I  do  not  enter  upon  the  difficult  question  of  conflict- 
ing authorities ;  but  I  urge  that  is  unsafe  to  build  an 
important  conclusion  upon  a  seriously  controverted 
reading.* 

There  is  nothing,  then,  in  the  criticisms  of  Dr. 
Eeville  but  what  rather  tends  to  confirm  than  to  im- 
pau'  the  old-fashioned  belief  that  there  is  a  revelation 
in  the  book  of  Genesis.  With  his  argument  outside 
this  proposition  I  have  not  dealt.  I  make  no  assump- 
tion as  to  what  is  termed  a  verbal  inspkation,  and  of 
course  in  admitting  the  vaiiety  I  give  up  the  abso- 
lute integrity  of  the  text.  Upon  the  presumable 
age  of  the  book  and  its  compilation  I  do  not  enter — 
not  even  to  contest  the  opinion  which  brings  it  down 
below  the  age  of  Solomon — beyond  observing  that  in 
every  page  it  apppears  from  internal  evidence  to  be- 
long to  a  remote  antiquity.  There  is  here  no  ques- 
tion of  the  chronology,  or  of  the  date  of  man,  or  of 
knowledge  or  ignorance  in  the  primitiv  man,  or 
whether  the  element  of  j)arable  enters  into  any  por- 
tion of  the  narrative ;  or  whether  every  statement  of 
fact  contained  in  the  text  of  the  book  can  now  be 
made  good.  It  is  enough  for  my  present  purpose  to 
point  to  the  cosmogony,  and  the  fourfold  succession 
of  the  Hving  organisms  as  entirely  harmonizing,  ac- 
cording to  present  knowledge,  with  belief  in  a  revela- 


*  This  perplexed  question  is  discussed,  in  a  sense  adverse 
to  the  Septuagint,  by  the  critics  of  the  recent  Revision,  in  the 
Quarterly  Review  for  October,  No.  322.  The  revisers  of  the 
Old  Testament  state  (Preface,  p.  vi)  that  in  a  few  cases  of  ex- 
treme diffioulty  they  have  set  aside  the  Massoretic  Text  in 
favor  of  a  readiuic  from  one  of  the  ancient  versions. 


22 


THE    ORDER    OF    CREATION. 


tion,  and  as  presenting  to  the  rejector  of  that  belief 
a  problem  which  demands  solution  at  his  hands,  and 
which  he  has  not  yet  been  able  to  solve.  Whether 
this  revelation  was  conveyed  to  the  ancestors  of  the 
whole  human  race  who  have  at  the  time  or  since  ex- 
isted, I  do  not  know,  and  the  scriptures  do  not  appeal* 
to  me  to  make  the  affirmation,  even  if  they  do  not  con- 
vey certain  indications  which  favor  a  contrary  opin- 
ion. Again,  whether  it  contains"  the  whole  of  the 
knowledge  specially  vouchsafed  to  the  parents  of  the 
Noachian  races  may  be  very  doubtful ;  though  of 
course  gi-eat  caution  must  be  exercised  in  regard  to 
the  particulars  of  any  primeval  tradition  not  derived 
from  the  text  of  the  earhest  among  the  sacred  books. 
I  have  thus  far  confined  myself  to  rebutting  objec- 
tions. But  I  will  now  add  some  positive  considera- 
tions which  appear  to  me  to  sustain  the  ancient  and, 
as  I  am  persuaded,  impregnable  behef  of  Christians 
and  of  Jews  concerning  the  inspiration  of  the  book. 
I  offer  them  as  one  wholly  destitute  of  that  kind  of 
knowledge  which  canies  authority,  and  who  speaks 
derivitively  as  best  he  can,  after  listening  to  teachers 
of  repute  and  such  as  practice  rational  methods. 

I  understand  the  pages  of  the  majestic  process  de- 
scribed in  the  book  of  Genesis  to  be  in  general  out- 
line as  follows : 

1.  The  point  of  departure  is  the  formless  mass, 
created  by  God,  out  of  which  the  earth  was  shaped 
and    constituted    a    thing    of    individual    existence 

(verses  1,  2). 

2.  The  detachment  and  collection  of  light,  leaving 
in  darkness  as  it  proceeded  the  still  chaotic  mass  from 
which  it  was  detached  (verses  ^5).     The  narrative 


DAWN   OP   CREATION   AND    OP   WORSHIP. 


25 


assigning  a  space  of  time  to  each  process  appears  to 
show  that  each  was  gradual,  not  instantaneous. 

2.  The  detachment  of  light  from  darkness  is  fol- 
lowed by  the  detachment  of  wet  fi'om  dry,  and  of 
soHd  from  Hquid  in  the  firmament  and  on  the  face  of 
the  earth.  Each  of  these  operations  occupies  a 
"  day,"  and  the  conditions  of  vegetable  life,  as  known 
to  us  by  experience,  being  now  provided,  the  order  of 
the  vegetable  kingdom  had  begun  (verses  6-13). 

4.  Next  comes  the  presentation  to  us  of  the  heav- 
enly bodies,  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  in  their  final  forms, 
when  the  completion  of  the  process  of  light-coUection, 
and  concentration  in  the  sun,  and  the  due  clearing  of 
the  intervening  spaces,  had  enabled  the  central  orb 
to  illuminate  us  both  with  direct  and  with  reflected 
hght  (verses  14-19). 

5.  So  far,  we  have  been  busy  only  with  the  adjust- 
ment of  material  agencies.  We  now  arrive  at  the 
dawn  of  animated  being ;  and  a  great  transition 
seems  to  be  marked  as  a  kind  of  recommencement  of 
the  work,  for  the  name  of  creation  is  again  intro- 
duced.    God  created 

(a)  The  water-population ; 
{b)  The  air-population. 
And  they  receive  his  benediction  (verses  20-23). 

6.  Pursuing  this  regular  progression  from  the 
lower  to  the  higher,  from  the  simple  to  the  complex, 
the  text  now  gives  us  the  work  of  the  sixth  "  day," 
which  supplies  the  land-population,  air  and  water 
having  already  been  suppKed.  But  in  it  there  is  a 
sub-division,  and  the  transition  from  (c)  animal  to  (d) 
man,  like  the  transition  from  animate  to  inanimate,  is 
again  marked  as  a  great  occasion,  a  kind  of  recom- 
mencement.    For  this  purpose  the  word  "  create  "  is 


u 


THIi   ORDER   01*   CREATION. 


a  third  time  employed.  "  God  created  man  in  his 
own  image,"  and  once  more  he  gave  benediction  to 
this  the  final  work  of  his  hands,  and  endowed  our 
race  with  its  high  dominion  over  what  lived  and  what 
did  not  live  (verses  24-31). 

I  do  not  dwell  on  the  cessation  of  the  Almighty 
from  the  creating  and  (ii,  1)  "  finishing  "  work,  which 
is  the  "  rest  "  and  marks  the  seventh  "  day,"  because 
it  introduces  another  order  of  considerations.  But 
glancing  back  at  the  narrative  which  now  forms  the 
first  chapter,  I  ofi'er  perhaps  a  prejudiced  and  in  any 
case  no  more  than  a  passing  remark.  If  we  view  it 
as  a  popular  narrative,  it  is  singularly  vivid,  forcible, 
and  effective  ;  if  we  take  it  as  as  a  poem,  it  is  indeed 
sublime.  No  wonder  if  it  became  classical  and  reap- 
peared in  the  glorious  devotions  of  the  Hebrew 
people,*  pursuing,  in  a  great  degree,  the  same  order 
of  topics  as  in  the  book  of  Genesis. 

But  the  question  is  not  here  of  a  lofty  poem,  or  a 
skilfully  constructed  naiTative ;  it  is  whether  natural 
science,  in  the  patient  exercise  of  its  high  caUing  to 
examine  facts,  finds  that  the  works  of  God  cry  out 
against  what  we  have  fondly  believed  to  be  his  word, 
and  tell  another  tale,  or  whether,  in  this  nineteenth 
century  of  Christian  progress,  it  substantially  echoes 
back  the  majestic  sound  which,  before  it  existed  as  a 
pursuit,  went  forth  into  all  lands. 

First,  looking  largely  at  the  latter  portion  of  the 
narrative,  which  describes  the  creation  of  Hving  organ- 
isms, and  waiving  details,  on  some  of  which  (as  in 
verse  24)   the  Septuagint  seems   to  vary  from  the 


*  Ps.  civ,  2-20,  cxxxvi,  5-9,  and  the  Song  of  the  Three 
Children  in  verses  67-60. 


DAWN   01*    CREATION   AND    OF   WORSHIP. 


25 


Hebrew,  there  is  a  grand  f oui'f old  division  set  forth 
vn  an  orderly  succession  of  times  as  follows :  on  the 
df  th  day 

1.  The  water-population ; 

2.  The  air-population ; 
and,  on  the  sixth  day, 

3.  The  land-population  of  animals ; 

4.  The  land-population  consummated  in  man. 
Now  this  same   fourfold  order  is  understood  to 

have  been  so  affirmed  in  our  time  by  natui'al  science 
that  it  may  be  taken  as  a  demonstrated  conclusion 
and  established  fact.  Then,  I  ask,  how  came  Moses, 
or,  not  to  cavil  on  the  word,  how  came  the  author  of 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  to  know  that  order,  to 
possess  knowledge  which  natural  science  has  only 
within  the  present  centmy  for  the  first  time  dug  out 
of  the  bowels  of  the  earth  ?  It  is  surely  impossible 
to  avoid  the  conclusion,  first,  that  either  this  writer 
was  gifted  with  faculties  passing  all  human  experi- 
ence, or  else  his  knowledge  was  divine.  The  first 
branch  of  the  alternative  is  truly  nominal  and  unreal. 
We  know  the  sphere  within  which  human  inquiry 
toils.  We  know  the  heights  to  which  the  intuitions 
of  genius  may  soar.  We  know  that  in  certain  cases 
genius  anticipates  science ;  as  Homer,  for  example, 
in  his  account  of  the  conflict  of  the  four  winds  in  the 
sea-storms.  But  even  in  these  anticipations,  mar- 
velous, and,  so  to  speak,  imperial  as  they  are,  genius 
cannot  escape  from  one  inexorable  law.  It  must  have 
materials  of  sense  or  experience  to  work  with,  and  a 
Ttov  (TTc^  from  whence  to  take  its  flight ;  and  genius 
can  no  more  tell,  apart  from  some  at  least  of  the 
results  attained  by  inquiry,  what  are  the  contents  of 


26 


THE   ORDKR   OF   CREATIOJf. 


the  crust  of  the  earth,  than  it  could  square  the  cu*cle 
or  annihilate  a  fact.* 

So  stands  a  plea  for  a  revelation  of  truth  from  God, 
a  plea  only  to  be  met  by  questioning  its  possibility ; 
that  is,  as  Dr.  Salmon  (Introduction  of  the  New 
Testament,  p.  ix.  Murray,  1885)  has  observed  with 
great  force  in  a  recent  work,  by  suggesting  that  a 
being,  able  to  make  man,  is  unable  to  communicate 
with  the  creature  he  has  made.  If,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  objector  confine  himself  to  a  merely  nega- 
tive position,  and  cast  the  burden  of  proof  on  those 
who  beheve  in  revelation,  it  is  obvious  to  reply  by  a 
reference  to  the  actual  constitution  of  things.  Had 
that  constitution  been  normal  or  morally  undisturbed, 
it  might  have  been  held  that  revelation  as  an  adrnini- 
culwn,  in  addition  to  our  natural  faculties,  would 
itself  have  been  a  disturbance.  But  the  disturbance 
has  in  truth  been  created  in  the  other  scale  of  the 
balance  by  departiure  from  the  supreme  will,  by  the 
introduction  of  sin ;  and  revelation,  as  a  special  rem- 
edy for  a  special  evil,  is  a  contribution  toward 
synunetry,  and  toward  restoration  of  the  original 
equilibrium. 

Thus  far  only  the  fourfold  succession  of  the  living 
orders  has  been  noticed.  But  among  the  persons  of 
very  high  authority  in  natural  science  quoted  by  Dr. 
Reuschjf  who  held  the  general  accordance  of  the 

*In  conversation  with  Miss  Bumey  (Diary  i,  576),  Johnson, 
using  language  which  sounds  more  disparaging  than  it  really 
\s,  declares  that  **  genius  is  nothing  more  than  knowing  the 
use  of  tools ;  but  then  there  must  be  tools  for  it  to  use." 

tBibel  und  Natur,  pp.  2,  63.  The  words  of  Cuvier  are  : 
**  Moyses  hat  uns  cine  Kosmogenie  hinterlassen,  deren  Ge- 
nauigkeit  mit  jedem  Tage  in  einer  bewunderimgswiirdigern 


DAWN    OP   CREATION   AND    OF   WORSHIP 


27 


Mosaic  cosmogony  with  the  results  of  modern  m- 
quiry,  ai'e  Cuvier  and  Sir  John  Herschel.  The  words 
of  Cuvier  show  he  conceived  that  "  evei-y  day  "  fresh 
confirmation  from  the  purely  human  source  accrued 
to  the  credit  of  scripture.  And  since  his  day,  for  he 
cannot  now  be  called  a  recent  authority,  this  opimon 
appears  to  have  received  some  remarkable  Hlustra- 

tions. 

Half  a  century  ago  Dr.  WheweU  (WOiewell's  Astron- 
omy and  General  Physics,  1834,   p.   181,  seqq.)  dis- 
cussed, under  the  name  of  the  nebular  hypothesis, 
that  theory  of  rotation  which  had  been  indicated  by 
Herschel,  and  more  largely  taught  by  Laplace,  as  the 
probable  method  through  which  the  solar  system  has 
taken  its  form.     Cai'efully  abstaining,  at  that  eai'ly 
date,  from  a  formal  judgment  on  the  hypothesis,  he 
appears  to  discuss  it  with  favor ;  and  he  shows  that 
this  hypothesis,  which  assumes  "  a  beginnmg  of  the 
present  state  of  things"  (WheweU,  op.  cit.  p.  20G), 
is  in  no  way  adverse  to  the  Mosaic  cosmogony.   The 
theory  has  received  marked  support  from  opposite 
quarters.    In  the  -  Vestige,  of  Creation  "  it  is  frankly 
adopted ;  the  very  curious  experiment  of  Professor 
Plateau    is  detailed    at  length  on  its  behalf    (Ves- 
tiges, etc.,  pp.  11-15) ;  and  the  author  considers,  w^th 
Laplace,  that  the  zodiacal  Hght,  on  which  Humboldt 
in  his  "  Kosmos  "  has  dwelt  at  large,  may  be  a  remnant 
of  the  luminous  atmosphere  originally  diffused  around 
the  sun.     Dr.  McCaul,  in  his  very  able  argument  on 
the  Mosaic  record,   quotes  (Aids  to   Faith,  p.  210) 
Humboldt,    Pfaff   and   Madler— a    famous    German 


Weise  bestatigt  ist."    The  declaration  of  Sir  John  Herschel 
was  in  1864. 


28 


THE  ORIiER  OF  CREATION. 


astronomer — as  adheiing  to  it.  It  appears  on  the 
whole  to  be  in  possession  of  the  field;  and  IMi*. 
McCaul  observes  (ibid)  that,  "  had  it  been  devised 
for  the  express  purpose  of  removing  the  supposed 
difficulties  of  the  Mosaic  record,  it  could  hardly  have 
been  more  to  the  pui-pose."  Even  if  we  conceive, 
with  Dr.  Reville,  that  the  *'  creation,"  the  first  gift  of 
separate  existences  to  the  planets,  is  declared  to  have 
been  subsequent  to  that  of  the  eai'th,  there  seems  to 
be  no  known  law  which  excludes  such  a  supposition, 
especially  with  respect  to  the  larger  and  more  distant 
of  their  number.  These,  it  is  to  be  noticed,  ai'e  of 
great  rarity  as  compared  with  the  eaiih.  Why  should 
it  be  declared  impossible  that  they  should  have  taken 
a  longer  time  in  condensation,  like  in  this  point  to 
the  comets,  which  still  continue  in  a  state  of  excessive 
rarity?  Want  of  space  forbids  me  to  enter  into 
further  explanation;  but  it  requu-es  much  more 
serious  efforts  and  objections  than  those  of  Dr  Ke- 
ville  to  confute  the  statement  that  the  extension  of 
knowledge  and  of  inquiry  has  confirmed  the  Mosaic 

record. 

One  word,  however,  upon  the  "  days  "  of  Genesis. 
We  do  not  hea)'  the  authority  of  scriptuie  impeached 
on  the  ground  that  it  assigns  to  the  Almighty  eyes 
and  ears,  hands,  arms,  and  feet ;  nay,  even  the  emo- 
tions of  the  human  being.  This  being  so,  I  am  unable 
to  understand  why  any  dispai'agement  to  the  credit 
of  the  sacred  books  should  ensue  because,  to  describe 
the  order  and  successive  stages  of  the  divine  working, 
these  have  been  distributed  into  "  days."  TVTiat  was 
the  thing  required  in  order  to  make  this  great  pro- 
cession of  acts  intelligible  and  imj^ressive  ?  Surely 
it  was  to  distribute  the  paits  each  into  some  integral 


DAWN    OF    CREATION    AND    OF    WORSmP. 


29 


division  of  time,  having  the  character  of  somethmg 
complete  in  itself,  of   a  revolution,  or   outset  aiid 
return      There  ai'e  but  thi'ee  such  divisions  f amihaxlj/ 
known  to  man.     Of  these  the  day  was  the  most  f amil^ 
iar   to  human  perceptions ;   and  probably   on  this 
account  its  figui'ative  use  is  admitted  fo  be  found  in 
prophetic  texts,  as,  indeed,  it  largely  pervades  ancient 
and  modern  speech.     Given  the  object  in  view,  which 
indeed  can  hardly  be  questioned,  does  it  not  appear 
that  the  "  day,"  more  definitely  separated  than  either 
month  or  year  from  what  precedes  and  what  follows, 
was  appropriately  chosen  for  the  purpose  of  convey- 
mg   the  idea  of   development  by  gradation  m  the 
pi^cess  which  the  book  sets  forth  ?  ,       ^, .  , 

I  now  come  to  the  last  portion  of  my  task,  which 
is   to  follow  Dr.   KevHle  into  his  exposition  of  the 
Olympian  mvthology.     Not,  indeed,  the  Homenc  or 
Gi'eek  religion  alone,  for  he  has  considered  the  ca^e 
of  aU  rehgions,  and   disposes   of  them  with  equal 
facihty.     Of  any  other  system  than  the  Olympian  it 
would  be  presumption  in  me  to  speak,  as  I  have,  be- 
yond this  hmit,   none    but    the    most   vague    and 
superficial  knowledge.     But  on  the  Olympian  systo 
in  its  earliest  and  least  adulterated,  namely  its  Ho- 
meric development,  whether  with  success  or  not,  I 
have  freely  employed  a  large  share  of  such  leisure  as 
more  than  thirty  years   of  my  Parhamentary  life, 
passed  in  freedom  from  the  calls  of  office,  ha.^  sup- 
pUed.     I  liope  that  there  is  not  in  Dr.  EeviLe  s 
treatment  of  other  systems  that  slightness  of  texture 
and  that  facihty  and  rapidity  of  conclusion,  which 
seem  to  me  to  mai'k  his  performances  in  the  Olympian 

V  the  main  he  follows  -(vhat  is  called  the  solar 


30 


THE   ORDER    OF    CREATION. 


theory.  In  his  widest  view  he  embraces  no  more 
than  "  the  rehgion  of  nature "  (pp.  94,  100),  and  he 
holds  that  all  religion  has  sprung  from  the  worship 
of  objects  visible  and  sensible. 

His  fii'st  essay  is  upon  Heracles,  whom  I  have 
found  to  be  one  of  the  most  difficult  and,  so  to  speak, 
irreducible  characters  in  the  Olympian  mythology. 
In  the  Tyrian  system  Heracles,  as  Melkart,  says  Dr. 
Keville  in  p.  95,  is  ''  a  brazen  god,  the  devoui'er  of 
children,  the  terror  of  men ; "  but,  without  any  loss 
of  identity,  he  becomes  in  the  Greek  system,  "  the 
great  lawgiver,  the  tamer  of  monsters,  the  peace- 
maker, the  liberator."  I  am  deeply  impressed  with 
the  danger  that  lurks  in  these  summary  and  easy 
solutions ;  and  I  will  offer  a  few  words  first  on  the 
Greek  Heracles  generally,  next  on  the  Homeric  pre- 
sentation of  the  character. 

Dr.  L.  Schmidt  has  contributed  to  Smith's  great 
dictionary  a  large  and  careful  article  on  Heracles ;  an 
article  which  may  almost  be  called  a  treatise.  Unlike 
Dr.  Keville,  to  whom  the  matter  is  so  cleai*,  he  finds 
himself  out  of  his  depth  in  attempting  to  deal  with 
this  highly  incongruous  character,  which  meets  us  at 
so  many  points,  as  a  whole.  But  he  perceives  in  the 
Heracles  of  Greece  a  mixture  of  fabulous  and  historic 
elements :  and  the  mythical  basis  is  not,  according  to 
him,  a  transplanted  Melkart,  but  is  essentially  Greek 
(Smith's  Diet,  ii,  400).  He  refers  to  Buttmann's 
" Mythologus "  and  Mailer's  "Dorians"  as  the  best 
treatises  on  the  subject,  "  both  of  which  regard  the 
hero  as  a  purely  Greek  character."  Thus  Dr.  Reville 
appeal's  to  be  in  conflict  with  the  leading  authorities, 
whom  he  does  not  confute,,  but  simply  ignores. 

Homer  himself  may  have  felt  the  difficulty  which 


DAWN   OF   CREATION   AND   OF   WORSHIP. 


31 


Dr.  Reville  does  not  feel,  for  he  presents  tons,  in  one 
and  the  same  passage,  a  divided  Heracles.    "Whatever 
of  him  is  not  €idolo?i  (Od.  xi,  601-4)  dwells  among 
the  Olympian  gods.     This  eidolon,  however,  is  no 
mere  shade,  but  something  that  sees  and  speaks,  that 
mourns  and  threatens  ;   no  "  lawgiver,"  or  "  peace- 
maker," or  "  liberator,"  but  one  from  whom  the  other 
shades  fly  in  terror,  set  in  the  place  and  company  of 
sinners  suffeiing  for  theii-  sins,  and  presumably  him- 
self in  the  same  predicament,  as  the  sense  of  grief  is 
assigned  to  him  :    it  is  in  wailing  that  he  addresses 
Odysseus  (Od.  xi,  605-16).     Accordingly,  while  on 
earth,  he  is  thrasuinemnon  (Od.  xi,  267),  huperthu- 
mos  (H.  xiv,  250),  a  doer  of  ^negala  erga  (Od.  xxi, 
26),  which  with  Homer  commonly  are  crimes.     He  is 
profaue,  for  he  wounded  Her6,  the  specially  Achaian 
goddess  (H.  V.   392) ;  and  he  is  treacherous,  for  he 
killed  Iphitos,   his  host,  in  order  to  carry  off  his 
horses   (Od.   xxi,    26-30).      A  mixed   character,   no 
doubt,  or  he  would  not  have  had  Hebe  for  a  partner ; 
but  those  which  I  have  stated  are  some  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  Dr  ReviUe  quietly  rides  over  to  describe 
him  as  a  lawgiver,  peacemaker,  and  liberator.     But  I 

proceed. 

Nearly  everything,  with  Dr.  ReviUe,  and,  indeed, 
with  his  school,  has  to  be  pressed  into  the  service  of 
the  solai-  theory ;  and  if  the  evidence  will  not  bear  it, 
so  much  the  worse  for  the  eridence.  Thus  Ixion, 
tortured  in  the  later  Greek  system  on  a  wheel,  which 
is  sometimes  represented  as  a  burning  wheel,  is  made 
(p.  105)  to  be  the  sun ;  the  luminai-y  whose  splendor 
and  benificence  had  rendered  him,  according  to  the 
theory,  the  center  of  all  Aryan  worship.  A  sorry  use 
to  put  him  to  ;  but  let  that  pass.     Now  the  occasion 


32 


THE   ORDER    OF    CREATION. 


that  supplies  an  Ixion  and  a  burning  wheel  available 
for  solai-ism — a  system  which  prides  itself  above  all 
things  on  its  exhibiting  the  primitive  state  of  things — 
is  that  Ixion  has  loved  unlawfully  the  wife  of  Zeus. 
And  first  as  to  the  wheel.  We  hear  of  it  in  Pindar 
(Pyth.  ii,  39) ;  but  as  a  winged,  not  a  burning  wheel. 
This  "  solar  "  feature  appears,  I  beheve,  nowhere  but 
in  the  latest  and  most  defaced  and  adulterated 
mythology.  Next  as  to  the  punishment.  It  is  of  a 
more  respectable  antiquity.  But  some  heed  should 
surely  be  taken  of  the  fact  that  the  oldest  authority 
upon  Ixion  is  Homer;  and  that  Homer  affords  no 
plea  for  a  biurning  or  any  other  wheel,  for  according 
to  him  (II.  xiv,  317),  instead  of  Ixion's  loving  the  wife 
of  Zeus,  it  was  Zeus  who  loved  the  wife  of  Ixion. 

Errors,  conveyed  without  testimony  in  a  sentence, 
commonly  require  many  sentences  to  confute  them. 
I  will  not  dwell  on  minor  cases,  or  those  purely  fanci- 
ful ;  for  mere  fancies,  which  may  be  admired  or  the 
reverse,  are  impalpable  to  the  clutch  of  argument, 
and  thus  are  hardly  subjects  for  confutation.  I^aulb 
majora  canamus.  I  continue  to  tread  the  field  of 
Greek  mythology,  because  it  is  the  favorite  sporting- 
ground  of  the  exclusivists  of  the  solar  theory. 

We  aie  told  (p.  80)  that  because  waves  with 
rounded  backs  may  have  the  appearance  (but  query) 
of  horses  or  sheep  throwing  themselves  tumultuously 
upon  one  another,  therefore  "  in  maritime  regions, 
the  god  of  the  liquid  element,  Poseidon  or  Neptune, 
is  the  breeder,  protector,  and  trainer  of  horses." 
Then  why  is  he  not  also  the  breeder,  protector,  and 
trainer  of  sheep  ?  They  have  quite  as  good  a  mari- 
time title  ;  according  to  the  first  line  of  Ariosto  ; 
Jkluggendo  van  per  mare,  i  cjran  montoni. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


33 


I  am  altogether  skeptical  about  these  rounded 
backs  of  horses,  which,  more,  it  seems,  than  other 
backs,  become  conspicuous  like  a  wave.     The  resem- 
blance, i  beheve,  has  commonly  been  drawn  between 
the  horse,  as  regai'ds  his  mane,  and  the  foam-tipped 
waves,  which  are  still  sometimes  called  white  horses. 
But  we  have  here,  at  best,  a  case  of  great  super- 
structure built  upon  a  shght  f  oimdation ;  when  it  is 
attempted,  on  the  groundwork  of  a  mere  simile,  hav- 
ing reference  to  a  state  of  sea  which  in  the  Mediter- 
ranean is  not  the  rule  but  the  rare  exception,  to  frame 
an  explanation  of  the  close,  pervading,  and  almost 
profound  relation  of  the  Homeric  Poseidon  to  the 
horse.     Long  and  careful  investigation  has  shown  me 
that  this  is  an  ethnical  relation,  and  a  key  to  impor- 
tant parts  of  the  ethnography  of  Homer.     But  the 
proof  of  this  proposition  would  require  an  essay  of 
itself.      I  will,  therefore,  only  refer  to  the  reason 
which    leads    Dr.    Reville    to    construct    this    (let 
me  say)  castle  in  the  air.     It  is  because  he  thinks 
he  is  accountmg  hereby  for  a  fact,  which  would  in- 
deed, if  established,  be  a  startlmg  one,  that  the  god 
of  the  Hquid  element  should  also  be  the  god  of  the 
horse.      We  are  dealing    now   especially  with  the 
Homeric  Poseidon,  for  it  is  in  Homer  that  the  rela- 
tion to  the  horse  is  developed  ;  and  the  way  to  a  true 
explanation    is    opened  when  we   observe   that   the 
Homeric  Poseidon  is  not  the  god  of  the  hquid  element 

at  all. 

The  truth  is  that  the  Olympian  and  ruling  gods  of 
Homer  are  not  elemental.  Some  few  of  them  bear 
the  marks  of  having  been  elemental  in  other  systems ; 
but,  on  admission  into  the  Achaian  heaven,  they  are 
Oivested  of  their  elemental  features.     In  the  case  of 


34 


THE  ORDER  OF  CREATION. 


DA^VN  OF  CRE-^TION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


35 


Poseidon  there  is  no  sign  that  lie  ever  had  these 
elemental  features.  The  signs  are  unequivocal  that 
he  had  been  worshiped  as  supreme,  as  the  Zeus-Po- 
seidon, by  certain  races  and  in  certain,  viz.  in  far 
southern,  countries.  Certainly  he  has  a  special  rela- 
tion to  the  sea.  Once,  and  once  only,  do  we  hear  of 
his  having  habitation  under  the  water  (II.  xiii,  17-31). 
It  is  in  11.  xiii  where  he  fetches  his  horses  from  it,  to 
repair  to  the  Trojan  plain.  He  seems  to  have  been 
an  habitual  absentee;  the  prototype,  he  might  be 
called,  of  that  ill-starred,  ill-favored  class.  We  heai' 
of  him  in  Samothrace,  on  the  Solyman  mountains, 
as  visiting  the  Ethiopians  (Od.  i,  25,  26),  who  wor- 
shipped him,  and  the  reek  of  whose  offerings  he 
preferred  at  such  times  to  the  society  of  the  Olympian 
gods  debating  on  Helenic  affairs;  though,  when  we 
are  in  the  zone  of  the  outer  geograj^hy,  we  find  him 
actually  presiding  in  an  Olympian  assembly  marked 
with  foreign  associations  (Od.  viii,  321-66).  Now 
compare  with  this  great  mundane  figure  the  true 
elemental  gods  of  Homer ;  first  Okeanos,  a  venerable 
figui'e,  wl.o  dwells  appropriately  by  the  fuithest  (II. 
xiv,  201)  bound  of  eai'th,  the  bank  of  the  Ocean  river, 
and  who  is  not  summoned  (II.  xx,  7)  even  to  the  gi'eat 
Olympian  assembly  of  the  twentieth  book ;  and  sec- 
ondly, the  graybeaid  of  the  sea,  whom  only  from 
the  patronymic  of  his  Nereid  daughters  we  know  to 
have  been  called  Nereus,  and  who,  when  reference  is 
made  to  him  and  his  train,  is  on  each  occasion  (II.  i, 
358  ;  xviii,  36)  to  be  found  in  one  and  the  same  place, 
the  deep  recesses  of  the  Mediterranean  waters.  If 
Dr.  Reville  still  doubts  who  was  for  Homer  the 
elemental  god  of  water,  let  him  note  the  fact  that 
while  ?ieros  is  old  Greek  for  wet,  ttero  is,  down  to  this 


very  day,  the  people's  word  for  water.  But,  con- 
clusive as  are  these  considerations,  their  force  will  be 
most  fully  appreciated  only  by  those  who  have  close.y 
observed  that  Homer's  entii-e  theurgic  system  is  res- 
olutely exclusive  or  natme-worship,  except  in  its 
lowest  and  most  colorless  orders,  and  that  where  he 
has  to  deal  with  a  nature-power  of  serious  pretensions, 
suc'h  as  the  water-god  would  be,  he  is  apt  to  pursue 
a  method  of  quiet  suppression,  by  local  banishment 
or  otherwise,  that  space  may  be  left  him  to  play  out 
upon  his  board  the  gorgeous  and  imposmg  figures  ct 
his  theanthi-opio  system. 

As  a  surgeon  performs  the  most  terrible  operation 
iu    a    few    seconds,    and   with  unbroken  cahn,  so 
does  the  school  of  Dr.  Roville,  at  least  within  the 
Homeric  precinct,  maishal,  label,  and  transmute  the 
personages  that  are  found  there.     la  touching  on 
the  "  lo<r "    bv  which  Dr.  Reville   says   Hera  was 
•represented  for  ages,  she  is   quietly  described  as 
the    "queen  of  tlie  shining  heaven"   (p.  79).     For 
this  assumption,  so  naively  made,  I  am  aware  of  no 
authority  whatever  among  the  Greeks-a  somewhat 
formidable  difficulty  for  others  than  solansts,  as  we 
are  dealing  with  an  eminently  Greek  conception. 
Euripides,    a    rather    late    authority,  says  (Emip. 
Helena,  100),  she  dweUs  among  the  stai-s,  <w  a.1 
deities  might  be  said,  ex  officio,  to  do  ;  but  gives  no 
indication  either  of  identity  or  of  queenship.    Ety- 
mology,   stoutly  disputed,    may    afford    a   refuge. 
Schmidt  (Smith's  Diet.,  a.-t.  "  Hera")  refers  the  name 
to  the  Latin  Jura;  Cui-tius  (Griech.  Etymol.,  p.  IIJ) 
and  I'reller  (PreUer,  Griech.  Mythol.  i,  121)  to  the 
Sanscrit  .s««;-,  meaning    the  heaven ;    and  ^^  elcker 
(Griech.  G6tterlehi-e  i,  362-3),  with  others,  to  what 


36 


THE  ORDER  OF  CREATION. 


DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF  WORSHIP. 


37 


appears  the  more  obvious  form  of,  epa,  the  earth. 
Dr.  Reville,  I  presume,  makes  choice  of  the  Sanscrit 
svar.    Such  etymologies,  however,  are,  though  greatly 
in  favor  with  the  solarists,  most  imcertain  guides  to 
Greek  interpretation.     The  effect  of  trusting  to  them 
is  that,  if  a  deity  has  in  some  foreign  or  anterior  sys- 
tem had  a  certam  place  or  office,  and  if  this  place  or 
office  has  been  altered  to   suit  the  exigencies  of  a 
composite  mytholygy,  the  Greek  idea  is  totally  mis- 
conceived.    If  we  take  the  pre-name  of  the  Homeric 
Apollo,  we  may  with  some  plausibility  say  the  Fhoi- 
bos  of  the  poet  is  the  sun ;  but  we  are  landed  at  once 
in  the  absurd  consequence  that  we  have  got  a  sun 
already  (See  infra.)  and  that  the  two  are  joint  actors 
in  a  scene  of  the  eighth  "  Odyssey"  (Od.  viii,  302, 
334).     Strange,  indeed,  will  be  the  effect  of  such  a 
system  if  applied  to  our  own  case  at  some  date  in  the 
far-off  future ;  for  it  will  be  shown,  inter  alia,  that 
there  were  no  priests,  but  only  presbyters,  in  any  • 
portion  of  Western  Christendom;   that  our  dukes 
were  simply  generals  leading  us  in  war ;    that  we 
broke  our  fast  at  eight  in  the  evening  (for  diner  is  but 
a  compression  of  dejeuner);  and  even,  possibly,  that 
one  of   the  noblest   and  most  famous   of  Enghsh 
houses  pursued  habitually  the  humble  occupation  of 

a  pig-driver. 

The  character  of  Hera,  or  Here,  has  received  from 
Homer  a  full  and  elaborate  development.  There  is 
in  it  absolutely  no  trace  whatever  of  "the  queen  of 
the  shining  heaven."  In  the  action  of  the  "  Odyssey" 
she  has  no  share  at  all — a  fact  absolutely  unaccount- 
able if  her  function  was  one  for  which  the  voyages  of 
that  poem  give  much  more  scope  than  is  supplied  by 
the  *'  Iliad."     The  fact  is  that  there  is  no  queen  of 


heaven  in  the  Achaian  system ;   nor  could  there  be 
without  altering  its  whole  genius.     It  is  a  curious  m- 
cidental  fact  that,  although  Homer  recognizes  to  some 
extent  humanity  in  the  stars  (I  refer  to  Orion  and 
Leucothee,  both  of  them  foreign  personages  of  the 
outer  geography),  he  never  even  approximates  to  a 
personification  of  the  real  queen  of  heaven,  namely, 
the  moon.    There  happens  to  be  one  marked  mcident 
of  the  action  of  Hera,  which  stands  in  rather  ludicrous 
contrast  with  this  lucent  queenship.    On  one  occasion 
when,  in  vktue  of  her  birth  and  station,  she  exercises 
some'  supreme    prerogative,   she  directs    the    sun 
(surely  not  so  to  her  lord  and  master)  to  set,  and  he 
reluctantly  obeys  (II.  xviii,  239,  240).     Her  character 
has  not  any  pronounced  moral  elements ;  it  exhibits 
pride  and  passion;    it  is   pervaded  intensely   with 
policy  and  nationalism  ;  she  is  beyond  aU  others  the 
Achaian  goddess,  and  it  is  sai'castically  imputed  to 
her  by  Zeus  that  she  would  cut  the  Trojans  if  she 
-  could,  and  eat  them  without  requiiing  in  the  first 
instance  any  cuhnary  process  (H.  iv,  35).     I  humbly 
protest  against  mauhng  and  disfiguring  this  work; 
against  what  great  Walter  Scott  would,  I  think,  have 
called  "  mashackering  and  misjugghng  "  it,  after  the 
manner  of  Nicol  Muschat,  when  he  put  an  end  to  his 
wife  Aihe  (Heart  of  Midlothian)  at  the  spot  afterward 
marked  by  his  name.      Why  blur  the  picture   so 
charcred  alike  with  imaginative  power  and  with  his- 
toric" meaning,  by  the  violent  obtrusion  of  ideas, 
which,  whatever  force  they  may  have  had  among 
other  peoples  or  in  other  systems,  it  was  one  of  the 
main  purposes  of  Homer,  in  his  marvelous  theurgic 
work,  to  expel  from  all  high  place  in  the  order  of 


38 


THE   ORDER   OF    CREATION. 


ideas,  and  from  every  corner,  every  loft  and  every 
cellai',  so  to  speak,  of  bis  01ymi)ian  palaces  ? 

If  the  Hera  of  Homer  is  to  own  a  relationship  out^ 
side  the  Achaian  system,  like  that  of  Apollo  to  the 
sun,  it  is  undoubtedly  with  Gaia,  the  eaiih,  that  it 
can  be  most  easily  established.  The  all-producing 
function  of  Gaia  in  the  Theogony  of  Hesiod  (Theog. 
llG-136)  and  her  marriage  with  Oiu'anos,  the  heaven, 
who  has  a  partial  relation  to  Zeus,  points  to  Hera  as 
the  majestic  successor  who  in  the  Olympian  scheme, 
as  the  great  mother  and  guardian  of  maternity,  bore 
an  analogical  resemblance  to  the  female  head  of  one 
or  more  of  the  Pelasgian  or  Achaic  theogonies  that 
it  had  deposed. 

I  have  now  done  with  the  treatment  of  details,  and 
I  must  not  quit  them  without  saying  that  there  are 
some  of  the  chapters,  and  many  of  the  sentences,  of 
Dr.  Reville  which  appear  to  me  to  deserve  our  thanks. 
And  much  as  I  differ  from  him  concerning  an  essen- 
tial part  of  the  historic  basis  of  religion,  I  trust  that 
nothing  which  I  have  said  can  appear  to  imi)ute  to 
him  any  hostility  or  indifference  to  the  substance  of 

rehgion  itself. 

I  make,  indeed,  no  question  that  the  solai'  theory 
has  a  most  important  place  in  solving  the  problems 
presented  by  many  or  some  of  the  Aryan  religions  ; 
but  whether  it  explains  their  first  inception  is  a 
totally  different  matter.  When  it  is  ruthlessly  applied, 
in  the  teeth  of  evidence,  to  them  all,  in  the  last  resort 
it  stifles  facts,  and  reduces  observation  and  reasoning 
to  a  mockery.  Sir  George  Cox,  its  able  advocate, 
fastens  upon  the  admission  that  some  one  particular 
method  is  not  available  for  all  the  phenomena,  and 
asks,  Why  not  adopt  for  the  Greek  system,  for  the 


DAWN   OF   CREATION   AND   OF   WORSHIP. 


39 


Aryan  systems   at  large,  perhaps   for  a  still  wider 
range,  "  a  clear  and  simple  explanation,"  namely,  the 
sol^ 'theory  (Mythology  of  Aryan  Nations,  i,  18)? 
The  plain  answer  to  the  question  is  that  this  must 
not  be  done,  because,  if  it  is  done,  we  do  not  follow 
the  facts,  nor  are  led  by  them ;  but  to  use  the  remark- 
able phrase  of  iEschylus,  we   ride  them   down,  we 
trample  them  under  foot.     Mankind  has  long  been 
too  familiar  with  a  raxje  of  practitioners,  whom  coui'- 
tesy  forbids  to  name,  and  whose  single  medicine  is 
alike  available  to  deal  with  every  one  of  the  thousand 
figures  of  disease.     There  ai-e  surely  many  sources  to 
which  the  old  religions  are  referable.     We  have  solar 
worship,  earth  worship,  astronomic  worship,  the  wor- 
ship  of   animals,   the  worship   of  evil  powers,  the 
worship  of  abstractions,  the  worship  of  the  dead,  the 
foul  and  poUuting  worship  of  bodily  organs,  so  wide- 
spread in  the  world,  and  especially  in  the  East ;  last, 
but  not  least,  I  Tvill  name   terminal   worship,   the 
remarkable  and  most  important  scheme  which  grew 
up,  perhaps  first  on  the  NHe,  in  connection  with  the 
stones  used  for  maxkmg  boundaiies,  which  finds  its 
principal  representative    in    the   god  Hemes,   and 
which  is  very  largely  traced  and  exhibited  in  the  first 
volume  of  the  work  of  M.  Dulaui-e  (Histoire  abregee 
de  differens  Cultes.     Seconde  edition.     Paris,  1825.) 
on  ancient  religions. 

But  none  of  these  circumstances  discredits  or  nn- 
pairs  the  proof  that  in  the  book,  of  which  Genesis  is 
the  opening  section,  there  is  conveyed  special  knowl- 
edge to  meet  the  special  need  everywhere  so  palpable 
in  the  state  and  history  of  our  race.  Far  indeed  am 
I  from  asserting  that  this  precious  gift,  or  that  any 
process  known  to  me,  disposes  of  all  the  problems, 


/ 


40 


THE   ORDER   OF   CREATION. 


either  insoluble  or  unsolved,  by  which  we  are  sur- 
rounded; of 

the  burden  and  the  mystery 

Of  all  this  unintelligible  world. 
But  I  own  my  surprise  not  only  at  the  fact,  but  at 
the  manner  in  which  in  this  day,  writers,  whose 
name  is  legion,  unimpeached  in  character  and 
abounding  in  talent,  not  only  put  away  from  them, 
cast  into  a  shadow  or  into  the  very  gulf  of  negation 
itself,  the  conception  of  a  deity,  an  acting  and  a  rul- 
ing deity.  Of  this  behef,  which  has  satisfied  the 
doubts  and  wiped  away  the  tears,  and  found  guid- 
ance for  the  footsteps  of  so  many  a  weary  wanderer 
on  earth,  which  among  the  best  and  greatest  of  our 
race  has  been  so  cherished  by  those  who  had  it,  and 
so  longed  and  sought  for  by  those  who  had  it  not, 
we  might  suppose  that  if  at  length  w^e  had  discovered 
that  it  was  in  the  light  of  truth  untenable,  that  the 
accumulated  testimony  of  man  was  worthless,  and 
that  his  wisdom  w^as  but  folly,  yet  at  least  the  decen- 
cies of  mourning  would  be  vouchsafed  to  this  irre- 
parable loss.  Instead  of  this,  it  is  with  a  joy  and 
exultation  that  might  almost  recall  the  frantic  orgies 
of  the  Commune,  that  this,  at  least  at  first  sight,  ter- 
rific and  overwhelming  calamity  is  accepted,  and  re- 
corded as  a  gain.  One  recent,  and  in  many  ways 
respected  writer  —  a  woman  long  wont  to  unship 
creed  as  sailors  discharge  excess  of  cargo  in  a  storm, 
and  passing  at  length  into  formal  Atheism — rejoices 
to  find  herself  on  the  opeD,  free,  and  "breezy  com- 
mon of  humanity."  Another,  also  a  woman,*  and 
dealing  only  with  the  workings  and  manifestations  of 

*  I  do  not  quote  names,  but  I  refer  to  a  very  recent  article 
in  one  of  our  monthly  periodicals. 


DAWN   OF   CREATION   AND    OP   WORSHIP. 


41 


God,  finds   in  the  theory  of  a  physical  evolution  as 
recently  developed  by  Mr.  Darwin,  and  received  with 
extensive  favor,  both  an  emancipation  from  eiTor  and 
a  novelty  in  kind.     She  rejoices  to  think  that  now 
at  last  Darwin  "  shows  life  as  a  harmonious  whole, 
and  makes  the  future  stride  possible  by  the  past 
advance."      Evolution,   that  is,   physical    evolution, 
which  alone  is  in  view,  may  be  true  (Uke  the  solar 
theory),  may  be  delightful  and  wonderful,  in  its  right 
place ;  but  are  we  really  to  understand  that  varieties 
of  animals  brought  about  through  domestication,  the 
wasting  of  organs  (for  instauce,  the  tails  of  men)  by 
disuse,  that  natural  selection  aud  the  survival  of  the 
fittest,  all  in  the  physical  order,  exhibit  to  us  the 
great  arcanum  of  creation,  the  sun  and  center  of  Hfe, 
so  that  mind  and  spirit  are  dethroned  from  their  old 
supremacy,  are  no  longer  sovereign  by  right,  but  may 
find  somewhere  by  chai^ity  a  placed  assigned  them, 
as  appendages,  perhaps  only  as  excrescences,  of  the 
material  creation?    I  contend  that  evolution  in  its 
highest  form  has  not  been  a  thing  heretofore  unknown 
to  history,  to  phOosophy,  or  to  theology.     I  contend 
that  it  was  before  the  mind  of  St.  Paul  when  he 
taught  that  in  the  fulness  of  time  God  sent  forth  his 
son,  and  of  Eusebius,  when  he  wrote  the  "  Prepara- 
tion for  the  Gospel,"  and  of  Augustine,  when  he 
composed  the  "City  of  God;"  and,  beautiful  and 
splendid  as  are  the  lessons  taught  by  natural  objects, 
they  are,  for  Christendom  at  least,  indefinitely  beneath 
the  subhme  unfolding  of  the  great  drama  of  human 
action,   in  which,   through  long  ages,  Greece  was 
making  ready  a  language  and  an  intellectual  type, 
and  Rome  a  framework  of  order  and  an  idea  of  law, 
such  that  in  them  were  to  be  shaped  and  fashioned 


42 


THE   OKDEB   OF   CREATION. 


the  destinies  of  a  regenerated  world.     For  those  who 
beheve  that  the  old  foundations  are  unshaken  still, 
and  that  the  fabric  built  upon  them  will  look  down 
for  ages  on  the  floating  wreck  of  many  a  modern  and 
boastful  theoi-y,  it  is  difficult  to  see  anything  but  in- 
fatuation in  the  destructive  temperament  which  leads 
to  the  notion  that  to  substitute  a  blmd  mechanism 
for  the  hand  of  God  in  the  affaii's  of  life  is  to  enlai'ge 
the  scope  of  remedial  agency ;   that  to  dismiss  the 
highest  of  all  inspu^ations  is  to  elevate  the  strain  ot 
human  thought  and  Hfe ;  and  that  each  of  us  is  to 
rejoice  that  our  several  units  ai'e  to  be  disintegrated 
at  death  into  *' countless  millions  of  organisms;"  for 
such,  it  seems,  is  the  latest  "  revelation "  dehvered 
from  the  fragile  tripod  of  a  modern  Delphi.    Assuredly 
on  the  minds  of  those  who  beheve,  or  else  on  the 
minds  of  those  who  after  this  fashion  disbeheve,  there 
hes  some  deep  judicial  darkness,  a  darkness  that  may 
be  felt.     While  disbehef  in  the  eyes  of  faith  is  a  sore 
calamity,  this  kind  of  disbehef,  which  renounces  and 
repudiates   with    more    than    satisfaction    what    is 
brightest   and  best   in  the  inheritance  of  man,  is 
astounding,  and  might  be  deemed  incredible.     Nay, 
some  will   say,  rather  than   accept  the  flimsy  aiul 
hollow  consolations  which  it  makes  bold  to   oif3r, 
might  we  not  go  back  to  solar  adoration,  or,  witL 
Goethe,  to  the  hollows  of  Olympus  1 
Wenn  die  Funke  spriilit, 
Wenn  die  Asclie  gluht, 
Ellen  wir  den  alten  Gottcrn  zu.* 

W.  E.  Gladstone. 


♦Literally: 

When  the  sparkicH  flow, 

When  the  anhi  h  Kl<^^^'» 

Hartten  we  the  okkii  gods  unto. 


—Bride  oj  Corinth. 


THE   INTEJirnETERS  OF    GENESIS  AND   THE 
INTERPRETERS  OF  NATURE. 

A  REPLY  TO  ME.  GLADSTONE'S  "  DAWN  OF  CREATION  AND  OF 

woRsmp." 

BY   PROF.  T.  H.  HUXLEY. 

Our  fabulist  warns  ^'  those  who  in  quarrels  inter- 
pose" of  the  fate  which  is  probably  in  store  for  them; 
and,  in  ventming  to  place  myself  between  so  power- 
ful a  controversiahst  as  Mr.  Gladstone  aaid  the  emi- 
nent divine  whom  he  assaults  with  such  vigor  m  the 
last  number  of  this  Beviein,  I  am  fully  awai-e  that  I 
run   great   danger    of    verifying    Gay's    prediction. 
Moreover,  it  is  quite  possible  that  my  zeal  in  ofi:ei^g 
aid  to  a  combatant  so  extremely  well  able  to  take 
care  of  himself  as  M.  Keville  may  be  thought  to 
savor  of  indiscretion. 

Two  considerations,  however,  have  led  me  to  face 
the  double  risk.     The  one  is  that   though,  m  my 
iudcrment,  M.  Reville  is  whoUy  in  the  right  m  that 
pai-t  of  the  controversy  to  which  I  propose  to  restrict 
my  observations,  nevertheless,  he,  as  a  foreigner,  has 
very  little  chaaice  of  making  the  truth  prevail  with 
Englishmen  against  the  authority  and  the  dialectic 
skiU  of  the  greatest  master  of  persuasive  rhetoric 
among  Enghsh-speaking  men  of  our  tune.     As  the 
queen's  proctor  intervenes,  in  certain  cases,  between 
two  htigants  in  the  interests  of  justice,  so  it  may  be 
pei-mitted  me  to  interpose  as  a  sort  of  uncommis- 
sioned science  proctor.     My  second  excuse  for  my 


44 


THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  GENESIS 


AND  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  NATURE. 


45 


I! 


meddlesomeness  is  that  important  questions  of  nat- 
ural science— respecting  which  neither  of  the  combat- 
ants professes  to  speak  as  an  expert— axe  involved  m 
the  controversy;  and  I  think  it  is  desirable  that  the 
pubHc  should  know  what  it  is  that  natural  science 
really  has  to  say  on  these  topics,  to  the  best  belief  of 
one  who  has  been  a  dihgent  student  of  natural 
science  for  the  last  forty  years. 

The  original  Frolegombies  de  Thistoire  des  Relig- 
ions has  not  come  in  my  way;  but  I  have  read  the 
translation  of  M.  KevHle's  work,  published  in  Eng- 
laad  under  the  auspices  of  Prof.  Max  Mailer,  with 
very  great  interest.  It  puts  more  fairly  and  clearly 
than  any  book  previously  known  to  me  the  view 
which  a  man  of  strong  religious  feelings,  but  at  the 
same  time  possessing  the  information  and  the  reason- 
ing power  which  enable  him  to  estimate  the  strength 
of  scientific  methods  of  inquiry,  and  the  weight  of 
scientific  truth,  may  be  expected  to  take  of  the  rela- 
tion between  science  and  religion. 

In  the  chapter  on  "The  Primitive  Revelation,"  the 
scientific  worth  of  the  account  of  creation  given  in 
the  book  of  Genesis  is  estimated  in  terms  which  are 
as  unquestionably  respectful  as,  in  my  judgment, 
they  are  just;  and,  at  the  end  of  the  chapter  on 
"  Primitive  Tradition,"  M.  Reville  appraises  the  value 
of  pentateuchal  anthropology  in  a  way  which  I  should 
have  thought  sure  of  enhsting  the  assent  of  all  com- 
petent judges,  even  if  it  were  extended  to  the  whole 
of  the  cosmogony  and  biology  of  Genesis: 

As,  however,  the  original  traditions  of  nations  sprang  up 
in  an  epoch  less  remote  than  our  own  from  the  primitive  life, 
it  is  indispensable  to  consult  them,  to  compare  them,  and  to 
associate  them  with  other  sources  of  information  which  are 


avaUable  From  this  point  of  view,  the  traditions  recorded 
rOenes^s  possess,  in  addition  to  their  own  Pe-^^ha^^ 
a  value  of  the  highest  order;  but  we  cannot  ultimately  see 
L  ttm  more  thai  a  venerable  fragment,  well  deservmg  at- 
tention,  of  the  great  genesis  of  mankmd. 

Mr.  Gladstone  is  of  a  different  mind.     He  dissents 
from  M.  Seville's  views  respecting  the  proper  estuna- 
tionof  the  pentateuchal  traditions  no  less  than  he 
does  from  his  interpretation  of  those  Homeric  myths 
which  have  been  the  object  of  his  ^^^^^^^"^.^'^^^^ 
In  the  latter  case,  m,  Gladstone  tells  M  Reville  that 
he  is  wrong  on  his  own  authority,  to  which,  m  such 
.  a  matter,  all  will  pay  due  respect;  in  the  former  be 
Affirms  Mmself  to  be  ^'  whoUy  destitute  of  that  kmd 
of  knowledge  which  carries  authority,"  and  his  rebuke 
is  administered  in  the  name  and  by  the  authority  of 

natural  science.  , 

An  air  of  magisterial  gravity  hangs  about  the  fol- 
lowing passage: 

But  the  question  is  not  here  of  a  lofty  poem,  or  a  skilf uUy 

constructed  narrative;  It  is  ->^<'*'=' -"'"'''>  ~^;^  *^ 
mtient  exercise  of  its  high  calling  to  examine  facts  finds  that 
fhe  works  of  God  cry  out  against  what  we  have  fondly  be- 
UeveTLbe  his  word,  and  tell  another  tale,  or  whether  m 
tWs  nineteenth  century  of  Christian  progress,  it  substan Ually 
echoes  blel  the  majestic  sound,  which,  before  it  exosted  as  a 
pursuit  went  forth  into  all  lands. 

"^^  rt,"  looking  largely  at  the  latter  portion  of  the  narratrve, 
which  describes  the  creation  of  livmg  organisms,  and  wa  v- 
5  deta  ll  on  some  of  which  (as  in  verse  24)  the  Sep^agmt 
se^ms  to  vary  from  the  Hebrew  there  is  »  f  ^f  f^f  is 
division,  set  forth  In  an  orderly  succession  of  times  as 
follows :  on  the  fifth  day. 

1.  The  water-population, 

2.  The  air-population, 
^and,  on  the  sixth  day. 


-ii' 


I  j 


i 
I  f 


'lit 


46 


THE   INTERPRETERS   OF   GENESIS 


3.  The  land-population  of  animals, 
4    The  land-population  consummated  in  man. 
Now  this  same  fourfold  order  is  understood  to  have  been  so 
affirmed  in  our  time  by  natural  science  that  it  may  be  taken 
as  a  demonstrated  conclusion  and  established  fact  (p.  GOG). 

"Understood?"  By  whom?  I  cannot  bring  my- 
self to  imagine  that  Mr.  Gladstone  has  made  so  solemn 
and  authoiitative  a  statement  on  a  matter  of  this  im- 
portance without  due  inquiiy— without  being  able  to 
found  himself  upon  recognized  scientific  authority. 
But  I  wish  he  had  thought  fit  to  name  the  source 
from  whence  he  has  derived  his  information,  as  in 
that  case  I  could  have  dealt  with  his  authority,  and  I 
should  have  thereby  escaped  the  appeai'ance  of  maknig 
an  attack  on  Mr.  Gladstone  himself ,  which  is  in  every 
way  distasteful  to  me. 

For  I  can  meet  the  statement  in  the  ]ast  pai'agraph 
of  the  above  citation  with  nothing  but  a  direct  nega- 
tive. If  I  know  anything  at  all  about  the  results 
attained  by  the  natuial  science  of  our  time,  it  is  "  a 
demonstrated  conclusion  and  established  fact "  that 
the  "  foui-fold  order  "  given  by  Mr.  Gladstone  is  not 
that  in  which  the  evidence  at  oui'  disposal  tends  to 
show  that  the  water,  ah,  aud  land  populations  of  the 
globe  have  made  their  appearance. 

Perhaps  I  may  be  told  that  IVli'.  Gladstone  does  gi^'e 
his  authority-that  he  cites  Cuvier,  S\i  John  Her- 
schel,  and  Dr.  -Whewell  in  support  of  his  case.  If 
that  has  been  Mr.  Gladstone's  mtention  in  mention- 
ino-  these  emment  names,  I  may  remark  that,  on  this 
p^-ticulai'  question,  the  only  relevant  authority  is 
that  of  Cuvier.  But,  great  as  Cuvier  was,  it  is  to  be 
remembered  that,  as  Mi'.  Gladstone  incidentally  re- 
mai'ks,  he  cannot  now  be  called  a  recent  authority. 


AND    THE    INTERPRETERS    OF    NATURE. 


47 


In  fact  he  has  been  dead  more  than  half  a  century 
'Id  tt  paleontology  of  oui-  day  is  related  tojhat  o, 
l,is  very  much  as   the  geography  of  ^^^  ^^^^^^^^ 
Snt^y  is  related  to  that  of  the  fourteenth.     Since 
1832  ihen  Cuvier  died,  not  only  a  new  world,  but 
few  wlds,  of  ancient  hf e  have  been  discovered ;  ^d 
ZlZho  have  most  faithfully  earned  on  the  work  of 
irief  founder  of  paleontology  have  done  ^ost  to 
invalidate  the  essentially  negative  grounds  of  his  spec 
nlnfivp  adherence  to  tradition. 

H TGladstone-s  latest  information  on  these  mat- 
ters is  derived  from  the  f-°- f  ^T^to^Hio, 
the  Ossemeus  J^o«s»7es,  I  can  understand  the  positwn 

le  has  io^en  up ;  if  he  has  ever  opened  a  respecteHe 
uxodern  manual  of  paleontology  or  geology,  I  cannot 
For  the  facts  which  demoUsh  his  whole  argument  are 
!f  the  CO— St  notoriety.  But  before  proceedmg 
toconsder  the  evidence  for  this  assertion  we  must 
be  cle^  about  the  mearnng  of  the  phraseology  em- 

^^rapprehend  that  when  m.  Gladstone  uses  the 
tem  "water-population"    he  means  those  ammals 
Sh  in  Genesis  i,  21  (Revised  Version  a^-c  spoken 
oiZ  "  the  gi-eat  sea  monsters  aad  every  hvmg  creat- 
i  that  m'oveth,  which  the  waters  brought  forth 
abundantly,  aiter  their  kind."    And  I  presume  i^.U 
v.ill  be  agreed  that  whales  and  porpoises,  ^^^^^^^^ 
Id  the  Lumerable  hosts  of  marine  mvertebrated 
ids,  axe  meaait  thereby.    So  "  aor-population 
IS  be  the  equivalent  of  "fowl;;  in  verse  20  and 
«  every  winged  fowl  after  its  bnd,"  vex-se  21      I  sup 
posel may  take  it  for  granted  that  by  "fowl    we 
have  her"  to  understand  buds-at  any  rate,  pnmanly. 
tcouLly,  it  may  be  that  bats,  and  the  extmct  pter- 


4.3  THE   INTERPRETERS   OF   GENESIS 

odactyles,  wluch  were  flying  reptiles,  come  under  the 
same  head.     But  whether  aU  insects  are  "creepmg 
things"   of  the  land-population,  or  whether  flying 
msects  axe  to  be  included  under  the  denomination  of 
"  winged  fowl,"  is  a  point  for  the  decision  of  Hebrew 
exegetes.     Lastly,   I  suppose    I    may  assume  that 
"land-population"  signifies  "the  cattle"  and  "the 
beast  of  ihe  earth,"  and  "  every  creeping  thing  that 
creepeth  upon  the  earth,"  in  verses  25  and  26  ;  pre- 
sumably it  comprehends  all  kinds  of  terrestrial  ani- 
mals vertebrate  aad  invertebrate,  except  such  as  may 
be  comprised  under  the  head  of  the  "  air-population." 
Now,  what  I  want  to  make  clear  is  this,  that  if  the 
terms,  '  "  water-population,"     "  air-population,"    and 
"land-population,"  are  understood  in  the  senses  here 
defined,  natural  science  has  nothing  to  say  in  favor 
of  the  proposition  that  they  succeeded  one  another 
in  the  order  given  by  Mr.  Gladstone ;  but  that,  on 
the  contrary,  all  the  evidence  we  possess  goes  to 
prove  that  they  did  not.     Whence  it  wiU  follow  that, 
if  Mr.  Gladstone  has  interpreted  Genesis  rightly  (on 
which  point  I  am  most  anxious  to  be  understood  to 
offer  no  opinion),  that  interpretation  is  whoUy  in-ec- 
oncilable  with  the  conclusions  at  present  accepted  by 
the  interpreters  of  nature— with  everything  that  can 
be  called   ''  a  demonstrated  conclusion  and  estab- 
hshed  fact "  of  natural  science.     And  be  it  observed 
that  I  am  not  here  deahng  with  a  question  of  specu- 
lation, but  with  a  question  of  fact. 

Either  the  geological  record  is  sufficiently  com- 
plete to  afford  us  a  means  of  determining  the  order 
in  which  animals  have  made  then-  appearaace  on  the 
globe  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is,  the  determination  of  that 
order  is  little  more  than  a  mere  matter  of  observa- 


AND   THE   INTERPRETERS   OF   NATUEE. 


49 


tion ;  if  it  is  not,  then  natural  science  neither  affirms 
nor  refutes  the  "  fourfold  order,"  but  is  simply  silent, 
The  series  of  the  fossiliferous  deposits,  which  con- 
tain the  remains  of  the  animals  which  have  lived  on 
the  earth  in  past  ages  of  its  history,  and  which  can 
alone  afford  the  evidence  required  by  natural  science 
of  the  order  of  appearance  of  their  different  species, 
may  be  grouped  in  the  manner  shown  in  the  left-hand 
column  of  the  following  table,  the  oldest  being  at  the 
bottom : 


FORMATIONS. 

Quaternary. 

Pliocene. 

Miocene. 

Eocene. 

Cretaceous. 

Jurassic. 

Triassic. 

Upper  Paleozoic. 

Middle  Paleozoic. 

Lower  Paleozoic. 

Silurian. 


Cambrian. 


FIRST  KNOWN  APPEARANCE  OF 


Vertebrate  air-population  (bats). 

Vertebrate  air-population  (birds  and  pter- 
odactyles). 

Vertebrate  land-population  (amphibia, 
repUlia[?']). 

Vertebrate  water-population  (fishes). 

Invertebrate  air  and  land  population  (fly- 
ing insects  and  scorpions). 

Invertebrate  water-population  (much  ear- 
•  lier,  if  eozoon  is  animal). 


In  the  right-hand  column  I  have  noted  the  group 
of  strata  in  which,  according  to  our  present  informa- 
tion, the  laiid,  air,  and  icater  populations  appear  for 
the  first  time  j  and,  in  consequence  of  the  ambiguity 
about  the  meaning  of  "  fowl,"  I  have  separately  indi- 
cated the  first  appeai-ance  of  bats,  biids,  flying  rep- 
tiles, and  fljong  insects.  It  will  be  observed  that,  if 
"  fowl "  means  only  "  bird,"  or  at  most  flying  verte- 
brate, then  the  first  certain  evidence  of  the  latter,  in 
the  Jiu-assic  epoch,  is  posterior  to  the  first  appear- 
ance of  truly  terrestrial  amphibia,  and  possiby  of  true 


50  THE   INTERPBETERS   OF    GENESIS 

reptiles,  in  the  Carboniferous  epoch  (Middle  Paleo- 
zoic) by  a  prodigious  interval  of  time. 

The  water-population  of  vertebrated  animals  first 
appears  in  the  Upper  SHuiian.      Therefore,   if    we 
found   ourselves   on  vertebrated  animals,  and   take 
"  fowl"  to  mean  bkds  only,  or  at  most  flying  verte- 
brates, natural  science  says  that  the  order  of  succes- 
sion was  water,  land,  and  air-population,  and  not— as 
IVIr  Gladstone,  founding  himself  on  Genesis,  says— 
water,  air,  laad-population.    If  a  chronicler  of  Greece 
affirmed  that  the  age  of  Alexander  preceded  that  of 
Pericles,  and  immediately  succeeded  that  of  the  Tro- 
jan wai',  Mr.  Gladstone  would  hai'dly  say  that  this 
order  is  "  understood  to  have  been  so  affirmed  by  his- 
torical  science  that  it  may  be  taken  as  a  demonstrated 
conclusion  and  established  fact."     Yet  natui'al  sci- 
ence "affii-ms"  his  "foui'-fold  order"  to  exactly  the 
same  extent — neither  more  nor  less. 

Suppose,  however,  that  "fowl"  is  to  be  taken  to 
include  flying  insects.    In  that  case  the  first  appear- 
ance of  an  ah'-population  must  be  shifted  back  for 
long  a^es,  recent  discovery  having  shown  that  they 
occur  in  rocks  of  SHurian  age.     Hence  there  might 
stm  have  been  hope  for  the  fourfold  order  were  it  not 
that  the  fates  unkindly  determined  that  scorpions- 
"  creeping  things  that  creep  on  the  eaa'th"i^ar  excel- 
lence—invned  up  in  Siluiian  strata  nearly  at  the  same 
time.     So  that  if  the  word  in  the  oiiginal  Hebrew 
translated  "  fowl "  should  really  after  all  mean  "  cock- 
roach "—and  I  have  great  faith  in  the  elasticity  of  that 
tongue  in  the  hands  of  biblical  exegetes-the  order 
primaiily  suggested  by  the  existing  evidence  : 
2.  Land  and  air-population, 
\,  Water-population, 


AND  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  NATURE. 


51 


Ml 


and  Mr.  Gladstone's  order: 

8.  Land-population, 
2.  Air-population, 
1.  Water-population, 

can  by  no  means  be  made  to  coincide.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  then,  the  statement  so  confidently  put  for- 
ward turns  out  to  be  devoid  of  foundation  and  in 
direct  contradiction  of  the  evidence  at  present  at  our 

disposal.* 

If,  stepping  beyond  that  which  may  be  learned  from 
the  facts  of  the  successive  appearance  of  the  forms  of 
animal  Hfe  upon  the  surface  of  the  globe,  in  so  far 
as  they  are  yet  made  known  to  us  by  natural  science, 
we  apply  oui-  reasoning  faculties  to  the  task  of  find- 
ing out  what  those  observed  facts  mean,  the  present 
conclusions  of  the  interpreters  of  nature  appear  to  be 
no  less  directly  in  conflict  with  those  of  the  latest  in- 
terpreters of  Genesis. 

*  It  may  be  objected  that  I  have  not  put  the  case  fairly,  in- 
asmuch as  the  solitary  insect's  wing  which  was  discovered 
twelve  months  ago  in  Silurian  rocks,  and  which  is  at  present 
the  sole  evidence  of  insects  older  than  the  Devonian  epoch, 
came  from  strata  of  Middle  Silurian  age,  and  is  therefore 
older  than  the  scorpions  which  within  the  last  two  years  have 
been  found  in  Upper  Silurian  strata  in  Sweden,  Britam,  and 
the  United  States.  But  no  one  who  comprehends  the  nature 
of  the  evidence  afforded  by  fossil  remains  would  venture  to 
say  that  the  non-discovery  of  scorpions  in  the  Middle  Silurian 
strata  up  to  this  time  affords  any  more  ground  for  supposmg 
that  they  did  not  exist  than  the  non-discovery  of  flymg  in- 
sects  m  the  Upper  Silurian  strata  up  to  this  time  throws  any 
doubt  on  the  certainty  that  they  existed,  which  is  derived 
from  the  occurrence  of  the  wing  in  the  Middle  Silurian.  In 
fact,  I  have  stretched  a  point  in  admitting  that  these  fossils 
afford  a  colorable  pretext  for  the  assumption  that  the  lana 
and  air-population  were  of  contemporaneous  ongm. 


ff2 


THE    INTERPRETERS    OF    GENESIS 


Mr.  Gladstone  appeal's  to  admit  that  there  is  son:c 
truth  in  the  doctrine  of  evolution,  and  indeed  places  it  . 
under  very  high  patronage : 

I  contend  that  evolution  in  its  highest  form  has  not  been  a 
thing  heretofore  unknown  to  history,  to  philosophy,  or  to  the- 
ology. I  contend  that  it  was  before  the  mind  of  St.  Paul 
when  he  taught  that  in  the  fulness  of  time  God  sent  forth  his 
son,  and  of  Eusebius,  when  he  wrote  the  -Preparation  for 
the  Gospel,"  and  of  Augustine  when  he  composed  the  "  City 
of  God"  (p.  706). 

Has  any   one  ever  disputed  the  contention  thus 
solemnly  enunciated  that  the  doctrine  of  evolution  was 
not  invented  the  day  before  yesterday  1     Has  any  one 
ever  dreamed  of  claiming  it  as  a  modern  innovation? 
Is  there  any  one  so  ignorant  of  the  history  of  phi- 
losophy as  to  be  unaw^ai'e  that  it  is  one  of  the  forms 
in  which  speculation  embodied  itself  long  before  t}io 
time  either  of  the  Bishop  of  Hippo  or  the  Apostle  to 
the  GentHes?     Is  Mr.  Gladstone,  of  all  people  in  the 
world,  disposed  to  ignore  the  founders  of  Greek  phi- 
losophy, to  say  nothing  of  Indian  sages  to  whom  evo- 
lution was  a  familiar  notion  ages  before  Paul  of  Tai'- 
sus  was  bom  ?     But  it  is  ungrateful  to  cavil  at  even 
the  most  oblique  admission  of  the  possible  value  of 
one  of  those  affirmations  of  natural  science   which 
really  may  be  said  to  be  "  a  demonstrated  conclusion 
and  estabhshed  fact."    I  note  it  with  pleasure,  if  only 
for  the  purpose  of  introducing  the  observation  tluit 
if  there  is  any  truth  whatever  in  the  doctiine  of  eve 
lution  as  apphed  to  animals,  IVIi-.  Gladstone's  gloss  cu 
Genesis  in  the  following  passage  is  hai'dly  happy : 

God  created — 

(a)  The  water-population; 

('>)  The  air-population. 


AND    THE   INTERPRETERS   OF    NATURE. 


63 


f 


And  they  receive  his  benediction  (verses  20-23). 

Pursumg  this  regular  progression  from  the  lower  to  the 
higher,  from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  the  text  now  gives  us 
the  work  of  the  sixth  "  day,"  which  supplies  the  land  popu- 
lation, ah-  and  water  having  been  already  supplied  (pp.  695, 
G96). 

The  gloss  to  which  I  refer  is  the  assumption  that 
the  "air-population"  forms  a  term  in  the  order  of 
progression  from  lower  to  higher,  from  simple  to 
complex— the  place  of  which  hes  between  the  water- 
population  below  and  the  land-population  above— and 
I  speak  of  it  as  a  "gloss"  because  the  pentateuchal 
writer  is  nowise  responsible  for  it. 

But  it  is  not  true  that  the  air-population,  as  a 
whole,  is  "lower"  or  less  "complex"  than  the  land- 
population.     On  the  contrary,  every  beginner  in  the 
study  of  animal  morphology  is  aware  that  the  organ- 
ization of  a  bat,  of  a  bird,  or  of  a  pterodactyle,  pre- 
supposes that  of  a  ten-estrial  quadruped,  and  that  it 
is  intelhgible  only  as  an  extreme  modification  of  the 
organization  of  a  terrestrial  mammal  or  reptile.     In 
the  same  way,  winged  insects  (if  they  aie  to  be 
counted  among  the  "air-population")  presuppose  in- 
sects which  were  wingless,  and  therefore,  as  "  creep- 
ing things,"  were  part  of  the  land-population.     Thus 
theory  is  as  much  opposed  as"  observation  to  the  ad- 
mission that  natui-al  science  indorses  the  succession 
of  animal  life  which  Mr.  Gladstone  finds  in  Genesis. 
On  the  contrary,  a  good  many  representatives  of  nat- 
ural science  would  be  prepared  to  say,  on  theoretical 
grounds  alone,  that  it  is  incredible  that  the  "air- 
population  "  should  have  appeared  before  the  "  land- 
population,"  and  that  if  this  assertion  is  to  be  found 


54 


THE   INTEKPBETERS    OF"  GENESIS 


in    Genesis,   it   merely  demonstrates   the   scientific 
worthlessness  of  the  story  of  which  it  forms  a  part. 

Indeed,  we  may  go  further.     It  is  not  even  admis- 
sible to  say  that  the  water-population,  as  a  whole,  ap- 
peared before  the  air  and  the  land-populations.     Ac- 
cording to  the  authorized  version.  Genesis  especially 
mentions  among  the  the  animals  created  on  the  fifth 
day  "  great  whales,"  in  place  of  which  the  revised 
version  reads  "  great  sea  monsters."     Far  be  it  from 
me  to  give  an  opinion  which  rendering  is  right,  or 
whether  either  is  right.     All  I  desire  to  remark  is, 
that  if  whales  and  porpoises, dugongs  and  manatees,  are 
to  be  regarded  as  members  of  the  water-population 
(and  if  they  are  not,  what   animals  can  claim  the 
designation "?),  then  that  much  of  the  water-popula- 
tion has  as  certainly  originated  later  than  the  land- 
population  as  bats  and  birds  have.     For  I  am  not 
aware  that  any  competent  judge  would  hesitate  to 
admit  that  the  organization  of  these  animals  shows 
the  most  obvious  signs  of  their  descent  from  terrest- 
rial quadrupeds. 

A  similar  criticism  applies  to  ]\Ir.  Gladstone's  as^ 
sumption  that,  as  the  fourth  act  of  that  "  orderly  suc- 
cession of  times,"  enunciated  in  Genesis,  **  the  land- 
population  consummated  in  man." 

If  this  means  simply  that  man  is  the  final  term  in 
the  evolutional  series  of  which  he  forms  a  part,  I  do  not 
suppose  that  any  objection  will  be  raised  to  that  state- 
ment on  the  part  of  students  of  natural  science.  But 
if  the  pentateuchal  author  goes  farther  than  this,  and 
intends  to  say  that  which  is  ascribed  to  him  by  IVIr. 
Gladstone,  I  think  natural  science  will  have  to  enter  a 
caveat.  It  is  not  by  any  means  certain  that  man— I 
mean  the  species  Homo  sapiens  of  zoological  termi- 


\ 


AND  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  NATURE. 


55 


nology— has  *'  consummated  "  the  land-population  in 
the  sense  of  appeai-ing  at  a  later  period  of  time  than 
any  other.     Let  me  make  my  meaning  clear  by  an  ex- 
ample.    From  a  morphological  point  of  view,   our 
beautiful  and  useful  contemporary— I  might  caU  him 
colleague— the  horse  {Eqiius  cahallus),  is  the  last  term 
of  the^volutional  series  to  which  he  belongs,  just  as 
Homo  sapiens  is  the  last  term  of  the  series  of  which 
he  is  a  member.     If  I  want  to  know  whether  the 
species  Equus  cahallus  made  its  appearance  on  the 
surface  of  the  globe  before  or  after  Homo  sapiens, 
deduction  from  known  law  does  not  help  me.     There 
is  no  reason  that  I  know  of  why  one  should  have  ap- 
peai-ed  sooner  or  later  than  the  other.     If  I  turn  to 
observation,  I  find  abundaut  remains  of  Equus  cahaU 
Ins  in  Quaternary  strata,  perhaps  a  little  earher.    The 
existence  of  Homo  sapiens  in  the  Quaternary  epoch 
is  also  certain.     Evidence  has  been  adduced  in  favor 
of  man's  existence  in  the  Pliocene,  or  even  in  the 
Irliocene  epoch.     It  does  not  satisfy  me;  but  I  have 
no  reason  to  doubt  that  the  fact  may  be  so,  neverthe- 
less.    Indeed,  I  think  it  is  quite  possible  that  further 
research  will  show  that  Homo  sapiens  existed,  not 
only  before  Equus  cahallus,  but  before  many  other 
of  the  existing  forms  of  animal  life ;  so  that,  if  all  the 
species  of  animals  have  been  separately  created,  man, 
in  this  case,  would  by  no  means  be  the  "  consumma- 
tion "  of  the  land-population. 

I  am  raising  no  objection  to  the  position  of  the 
foui-th  term  in  IVIr.  Gladstone's  "  order  "—on  the 
facts,  as  they  stand,  it  is  quite  open  to  anyone  to 
hold,  as  a  pious  opinion,  that  the  fabrication  of  man 
was  the  acme  and  final  achievement  of  the  process  of 
peophng  the  globe.    But  it  must  not  be  said  that 


56 


THE  IKTERPRETEliS   OF   GENESIS 


4* 

1 

i 


BatiiraJ  science  counts  tliis  opinion  among  her 
"demonstrated  conclusions  and  established  facts," 
for  there  would  be  just  as  much,  or  as  Httle,  reason 
for  ranging  the  contrary  opinion  among  them. 

It  may  seem  superfluous  to  add  to  the  evidence 
that  Ml*.  Gladstone  has  been  utterly  misled  in  sup- 
posing that  his  interpretation  of  Genesis  receives  any 
support  from  natural  science.  But  it  is  as  well  to  do 
one's  work  thoroughly  while  one  is  about  it;  audi 
'hmk  it  may  be  advisable  to  point  out  that  the  facts, 
as  they  ai'e  at  present  known,  not  only  refute  Mr. 
Gladstone  s  intei-pretation  of  Genesis  in  detail,  but 
aw  opposed  to  111©  oentrnl  idea  on  >Khich  it  appooni 

iob6lMi8ed. 

Thwe  muHt  bo  iMJtuie  i>O0itM)ii  from  wLi^ih  the  reo- 
DmicflerA  of  «cicnc6  and  Gcoem  will,  not  i*li>c*t>  Romo 
ofifiiral  idea  Uw  mnlntODanco  of  vUich  hi  vitiil  and  iU 
refutation  fatal  Kveii  if  ihej  now  allow  tlwit  tlio 
woi-dd  **  til©  evening  luid  the  moniiag  **  Lav©  not  tlifO 
loaMt  refertfKkce  to  a  natural  dav,  but  mttnii  a  x>erii>d  of 
,uiy  Dumber  of  millious  of  year*  lliat  may  be  Docea- 
Kary ;  even  if  Hioj'  are  driven  to  admit  that  tbe  word 
•*  creation,"  whicli  ho  many  miUiona  of  jiio^ia  JewM 
and  ClkriMtianK  Lave  lield*  and  Ktill  hold,  to  mam  a 
iudden  act  of  tlio  d^iily,  eignifica  a  iiflroeeas  of  gnulual 
e\olulion  of  one  apedee  from  another,  extending 
ihiXMigb  immMHRirable  time ;  oven  if  Uiej  aix)  willing 
to  grant  tliat  ibo  MMoried  coi]ftcid«U)Oo  of  the  order  of 
nature  with  the  "fourfold  oordiar"  a«ariUMl  to  GesMMM 
fe  an  obTioua  enror  instead  of  .^  oalabliBhed  tnitb — 
Uiej  are  miroly  prexMa^ed  to  make  a  hunt  stand  uixin 
Ibe  conception  wbidi  undertica  the  wLole^  and  which 
eoBBtitutcK  the  ettence  of  Mr  Gladstone's  '*  fourfold 
divinton,  6<tt  forth  in  au  orderly  succoaaiou  of 


AND   THE   INTF.nrUKTKllfci  OF   NATURE. 


57 


tt 


It  is,  that  tho  animal  Bpecies  which  compose  the 
water-population,  tho  air  population,  and  tho  land- 
population,  re8pectivcly,  originated  during  three  dis- 
tinct and  successive  periods  of  time,  and  only  duiing 
those  peiiodti  of  time. 

This  stat('ni(»nt  appears  to  mo  to  be  the  interpreta- 
tion of  Gt  lu  sir.  wliirlv  l\Tr.  Oliidtitone  support*,  re- 
duced to  ilM  simpk'Hl,  r\]»n  ssiou.  **  Period  of  time** 
is  substitutiul  for  ''  day ;"  "  originated "  i«  KubHli- 
tuted  for  *'  created ;"  and  any  order  requii'od  for  that 
adopted  by  Mr.  Gladstone.  It  ii*  necessary  to  make 
this  proviso,  for  if  ••  day "  may  mean  a  few  millioii 
y^ans  and  "cxealiun  "  nwiy  mean  evolution,  tlien  it  is 
obvKWia  that  the  oidrr  (1)  waiw^popnlatioa,  (2) 
air-popuktion,  (3)  land-population*  may  oIko  m<5an 
(1)  wat«^poi>ulation.  (2)  lond-iKipulation,  (3)  air-iwp- 
ulation;  and  it  would  bo  unkind  to  bind  down  the 
reooncilerM  to  thia  derail  when  one  has  paiiod  with  ao 
many  otlicnt  to  oblige  tbeoa. 

But  oven  this  8ublimato<l  tmmf^  of  tho  pttdta- 
teucbol  docirine  (if  it  l>n  »iich)  remains  oa  diaeordant 
with  nntuiu)  sciwicK*  a*  over. 

It  i*  not  true  that  tlio  Hixdee  ooinpoaing  any  one 
of  tho  thrve  jwpulatioma  originated  during  anyone  of 
three  Ruooefiiife  i)eriod»  of  timey  and  not  at  uny  other 

of  thesa 

Undoubtedly,  it  is  in  Uio  higtiMl  degree  psobaUe 
Ibat  anunal  life  api>eared  fiwt  under  aquatic  condi- 
tions I  tbat  tcoTcalrial  form*  appeared  lateor,  and  flying 
animals  only  ikfttfr  land  aniraab ;  but  it  is,  at  tboaaine 
time,  t«etiii<:<l  by  all  tho  orideuoe  we  powcttn  that  the 
great  majority,  if  not  the  whole,  of  the  primordial 
species  of  eadi  division  bavo  long  nince  died  out  and 
have  been  roplaocMl  by  a  vast  snooeaaion  of  new  forma. 


53  THE    INTERPRETER?    OF    GENESIS 

Hundreds  of  thousands  of  animal  species,  as  distinct 
as  those  which  now  compose  our  water,  land,  and 
ah-  populations,  have  come  into  existence  and  died  out 
again,  throughout  the  eons  of  geological  time  which 
separate  us  from  the  lower  Paleozoic  epoch,  when,  as 
I  have  pointed  out,  our  present  evidence  of  the  exist- 
ence of  such  distinct  populations  commences.     If  the 
species  of  animals  have  all  been  separately  created, 
then  it  follows  that  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acts  of 
creative  energy  have  occurred  at  intervals  throughout 
the  whole  time  recorded  by  the  f ossiHferous  rocks ; 
and,  during  the  greater  part  of  that  time,  the  "  crea- 
tion" of  the  members  of  the  water,  land,  and  au-  pop- 
ulations must  have  gone  on  contemporaneously. 

If  we  represent  the  water,  land,  and  air  populations 
by  a,  b,  and  c  respectively,  and  take  vertical  succession 
on  the  page  to  indicate  order  in  time,  then  the  fol- 
lowing schemes  will  roughly  shadow  forth  the  con- 
trast I  have  been  endeavoring  to  explain : 

Nature  (as  i»terpreted 

by  natural  science). 

c^  a^  b^ 

c  c  c  e   a^h^ 

aaa  *   «' * 

a  a   a 

So  far  as  I  can  see,  there  is  only  one  resource  left 
for  those  modem  representatives  of  Sisyphus,  the  rec- 
oncilers of  Genesis  with  science;  and  it  has  the  ad- 
vautage  of  being  founded  on  a  perfectly  legitimate 
appeal  to  our  ignorance.  It  has  been  seen  that,  on 
any  interpretation  of  the  terms  *'  water-population" 
and  *'  land-population,"  it  must  be  admitted  that 
invertebrate  representatives  of  these  populations  ex- 
isted during  the  lower  Paleozoic  epoch.  No  evolu- 
tionist can  hesitate  to  admit  that  other  land  animals 


Genesis  (as  interpreted 

by  Mr.  Gladstone). 

b  bh 


AND  THE  INTERPRETERS  OP  NATURE. 


59 


(aud  possibly  vertebrates  among  them)  may  have  ex- 
isted during  that  time,  of  the  history  of  which  we 
know  so  httle ;  and,  further,  that  scorpions  are  ani- 
mals of  such  high  organization  that  it  is  highly  prob- 
able then-  existence  indicates  that  of  a  long  antece- 
dent land-population  of  a  similar  character. 

Then,  smce  the  land-population  is  said  not  to  have 
been  created  untH  the  sixth  day,  it  necessarily  fol- 
lows that  the  evidence  of  the  order  in  which  animals 
appeared  must  be  sought  in  the  record  of  those  older 
Paleozoic  times  m  which  only  traces  of  the  water- 
population  have  as  yet  been  discovered. 

Therefore,  if  anyone  chooses  to  say  that  the 
creative  work  took  place  in  the  Cambrian  or  Lauren- 
tian  epoch  in  exactly  that  manner  which  Mr.  Glad- 
stone does,  and  natural  science  does  not,  affirm,  nat- 
ural science  is  not  in  a  position  to  disprove  the 
accuracy  of  the  statement.  Only  one  cannot  have 
one's  cake  aud  eat  it  too,  and  such  safety  from  the 
contradiction  of  science  meaas  the  forfeiture  of  her 

support. 

Whether  the  account  of  the  work  of  the  first,  sec- 
ond and  third  days  in  Genesis  would  be  confirmed 
by  the  demonstration  of  the  truth  of  the  nebular  hy- 
pothesis ;    whether  it  is  corroborated  by  what    is 
known  of  the  nature  and  probable  relative  antiquity  of 
the  heavenly  bodies ;  whether,  if  the  Hebrew  word 
translated    "firmament"    in    the    Authorized    Ver- 
sion really  means  "  expanse,"  the  assertion  that  the 
waters  are  partly  under  this  "  expanse  "  and  partly 
above  it  would  be  any  more  confirmed  by  the  ascer- 
tained facts  of  physical  geography  and  meteorology 
than  it  was    before;  whether  the  creation  of    the 
whole  vegetable  world,  and  especially  of  '^  grass,  herb 


GO 


THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  GENESIS 


AND  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  NATURE. 


61 


I 


yielding  seed  after  its  kind,  and  tree  bearing  fmit," 
before  any  kind  of  oaiinal  is  "  afiarmed  "  by  tlie  appai- 
ently  plain  teaching  of  botanical  paleontology,  that 
grasses  and  fruit-trees  originated  long  subsequently 
to  animals— all  these  are  questions  which,  if  I  mis- 
take not,  would  be  answered  decisively  in  the  negative 
by  those  who  ai'e  specially  conversant  with  the  sci- 
ences involved.  And  it  must  be  recollected  that  the 
issue  raised  by  IVIr.  Gladstone  is  not  whether,  by 
some  effort  of  ingenuity,  the  pentateuchal  story  can 
be  shown  to  be  not  disprovable  by  scientific  knowl- 
edge, but  whether  it  is  supported  thereby. 

There  is  nothing,  then,  in  the  criticisms  of  Dr.  R^ville, 
but  what  rather  tends  to  confirm  than  to  impair  the  old-fash- 
ioned belief  that  there  is  a  revelation  in  the  book  of  Genesis. 

The  form  into  which  IMi'.  Gladstone  has  thought 
fit  to  throw  this  opinion  leaves  me  in  doubt  as  to  its 
substance.     I  do  not  understand  how  a  hostile  criti- 
cism can,  under  any  circumstances,  tend  to  confirm 
that  which  it  attacks.     If,  however,  IMi*.  Gladstone 
merely  means  to  express  his  personal  impression,  "as 
one  wholly  destitute  of  that  kind  of  knowledge  which 
carries  authority,"  that  he  has  destroyed  the  value  of 
these  criticisms,!  have  neither  the  wish  nor  the  right 
to  disturb  his  faith.     On  the  other  hand,  I  may  be 
permitted  to  state  my  own  conviction  that,  so  far  as 
natural  science  is  involved,  M.  Reville's  observations 
retain  the  exact  value  they  possessed    before   Mr. 
Gladstone  attacked  them 

Trusting  that  I  have  now  said  enough  to  secure  the 
author  of  a  wise  and  moderate  disquisition  upon  a 
topic  which  seems  fated  to  stu'  unwisdom  and  fanat- 
icism to  their  depths,  a  fuller  measui'e  of  justice  thau 


has  hitherto  been  accorded  to  him,  I  retu-e  from  my 
self-appointed  championship,  with  the  hope  that  I 
shall  not  hereafter  be  called  upon  by  M.  Eeville  to 
apologize  for  damage  done  to  his  strong  case  by  im- 
perfect or  impulsive  advocacy.  But  perhaps  I  may  be 
permitted  to  add  a  word  or  two,  on  my  own  account, 
in  reference  to  the  gi'eat  question  of  the  relations 
between  science  and  rehgion,  since  it  is  one  about 
which  I  have  thought  a  good  deal  ever  since  I  have 
been  able  to  think  at  all,  and  about  which  I  have  ven- 
tured to  express  my  views  publicly  more  than  once 
in  the  course  of  the  last  thiiiy  years. 

The  antagonism  between  science  and  religion, 
about  which  we  heai*  so  much,  appears  to  me  to  be 
purely  factitious,  fabricated  on  the  one  hand  by 
short-sighted  religious  people,  who  confoimd  a  cer- 
tain brancli  of  science,  theology,  with  religion ;  and 
on  the  other  by  equally  shori-sighted  scientific  people 
who  forget  that  science  takes  for  its  province  only 
that  which  is  susceptible  of  clear  intellectual  compre- 
hension, and  that  outside  the  boundaries  of  that  prov- 
LQce  they  must  be  content  with  imagination,  with 
hope,  and  with  ignorance. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  moral  and  intellectual  life 
of  the  civilized  nations  of  Euiope  is  the  product  of 
that  interaction,  sometimes  in  the  way  of  antago- 
nism, sometimes  in  that  of  profitable  interchange  of 
the  Semitic  and  Aryan  races,  which  commenced  with 
the  dawn  of  history,  when  Greek  and  Phoeniciiui 
came  in  contact,  and  has  been  continued  by  Cartha- 
ginian and  Roman,  by  Jew  and  gentile,  down  to  the 
present  day.  Our  art  (except,  porliap«,  music)  and 
our  science  nvv.  ihcj  contributions  of  the  Aryan;  hut 
the    essence   of  our  religion  is    derived   from    the 


f|i 


62 


THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  GENESIS 


AND  THE  INTERPRETERS  OF  NATURE. 


63 


Semite.  In  the  eighth  century  b.c,  m  tiie  heart  of 
a  world  of  idolatrous  polytheists,  the  Hebrew  proph- 
ets put  forth  a  conception  of  religion  which  appears 
to  me  to  be  as  wonderful  an  inspiration  of  gemus  as 
the  art  of  Pheidias  or  the  science  of  Aristotle. 

"  And  what  doth  the  Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to 
do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk  humbly 

with  thy  God  r  ^       ...  f 

If  any  so-called  religion  takes  away  from  this  great 

saying  of  Micah,  I  think  it  wantonly  mutilates,  while 

if  it  adds  thereto,  I  think  it  obscures,  the  perfect 

ideal  of  religion.  ,    .         ^  t 

But  what  extent  of  knowledge,  what  acuteness  of 
scientific  criticism,  can  touch  this,  if  anyone  possessed 
of  knowledge  or  acuteness  could  bo  absurd  enough 
to  make  the  attempt  ?  Will  the  progress  of  research 
prove  that  justice  is  worthless  and  mercy  hateful  T 
Wm  it  ever  soften  the  bitter  contrast  between  our 
actions  and  our  aspiiations,  or  show  us  the  bounds  of 
the  universe,  and  bid  us  say,  "  Go  to,  now  we  com- 
prehend the  infinite  V 

A  faculty  of  wrath  lay  in  those  ancient  Israehtes, 
and  surely  the  prophet's  staff  would  have  made  swift 
acquaintance  with  the  head  of  the  scholar  who  had 
asked  Micah  whether,  peradventuie,  the  Lord  further 
required  of  him  an  implicit  behef  in  the  accuracy  of 
the  cosmogony  of  Genesis ! 

What  we  are  usually  pleased  to  call  rehgion  now- 
adays is,  for  the  most  part,  HeUenized  Judaism;  and 
not  unfrequently  the  HeUenic  element  carries  with  it 
a  mighty  remnant  of  old-world  paganism  and  a  great 
infusion  of  the  worst  and  weakest  products  of  Greek 
scientific  speculation;  while  fragments  of  Persian  and 


Babylonian,  or  rather  Accadian,  mythology  burden 
the  Judaic  contribution  to  the  common  stock. 

The  antagonism  of  science  is  not  to  religion,  but 
to  the  heathen  survivals  and  the  bad  phHosophy  un- 
der which  rehgion  herself  is  often  weU-nigh  crushed. 
And,  for  my  part,  I  trust  that  this  antagonism  will 
never  cease,  but  that  to  the  end  of  time  true  science 
will  continue  to  fulfil  one  of  her  most  beneficent 
functions,  that  of  relieving  men  from  the  burden  of 
false  science  which  is  imposed  upon  them  in  the  name 

of  rehgion. 

This  is  the  work  that  M.  ReviUe  and  men  such  as 
he  are  doing  for  us;  this  is  the  work  which  his  op- 
ponents ai-e  endeavoiing,  consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, to  hinder.  T.  H.  Huxley. 


POSTSCRIPT    TO   SOLAR  MYTHS. 


65 


.1 

?! 

I 

I 


i 


i; 


«        POSTSCIilPT    TO    SOLAR    MYTHS. 

A   REPLY   TO    W.    E.    GLADSTONE. 
BY    F.    MAX    MULLER. 

I  jQnd  it  difficult,  and  should  consider  it  almost  dis- 
courteous, to  order  the  last  revise  of  my  article  on 
"  Solar  Myths  "  for  press  without  saying  a  few  words 
in  reply  to  Mr.  Gladstone's  essay  on  the  "  Dawn  of 
Creation  and  of  Worship,"  published  in  the  November 
number  of  this  Beview.     INIi-.  Gladstone's  alignments, 
it  is  true,  are  chiefly  dii'ected  against  M.  Eeville's 
"  Prolegom^nes  de  I'Histoire  des  Religions,"  a  work 
which  I  felt  it  an  honor  to  introduce  to  the  favorable 
notice  of  the  Enghsh  pubhc  by  adding  a  small  preface 
to    the  Enghsh    translation.      Nor    should  I   have 
thought  it  incumbent  upon  myself,  or  respectful  to 
so  eminent  a  theologian  as  M.  Revnie  has  long  proved 
himself  to  be  both  as  an  active  clergyman  and  as  the 
first  professor  of  the  science  of  rehgion  at  the  College 
de  France,  to  step  in  between  him  and  Mr.  Glad- 
stone, while  these  two  eloquent  pleaders  ai'e  discuss- 
ing their  own  peculiar  views  on  the  origin  of  the 
Pentateuch  or  on  the  exact  meaning  of  certain  con- 
tested passages  in  the  book  of  Genesis. 

But  when  Mr.  Gladstone  jjroceeds  to  attack,  with 
what  seems  to  me  in  some  passages  parliamentary 
rather  than  academic  eloquence,  the  fundamental  piin- 
ciples  of  comparative  mythology,  and  more  particu- 
larly that  theory  which  he  calls  Solarism,  it  might 
show  discretion  indeed,  but  hardly  valor,  were  I  to 


hide  myself  behind  M.  ReviUe,  who  has  so  boldly 
come  forward  as  the  champion  of  a  theory  the  pater- 
nity of  which  I  could  not,  and,  if  I  could,  I  would 

not  deny. 

Solarism,  however,  is  used  by  Mr.  Gladstone  m  a 
sense  very  different  from  that  in  which  I  should  use 
it.     He  apphes  it  to  a  theory  according  to  which  all 
mythology  has  a  solar  origin,  all  gods  are  solar  gods, 
all  heroes  solar  heroes,  all  myths  and  legends  but 
half -forgotten  stories  about  the  sun  as  the  giver  o£ 
hght  and  hfe,  or  as  the  lord  of  days  and  months  and 
seasons  and  years.     IMine  has  been  a  much  humbler 
task,  and  I  have  never  attempted  more  than  to  prove 
ih2X  certain  portions  of  ancient  mythology  have  a 
directly  solar  origin.    Nor  have  I  ever  done  so  except 
in  cases  where,  either  by  etymological  analysis  or  by 
a  comparison  of  Greek  and  Romaa  with  Vedic  myths, 
I  imagined  I  could  make  it  clear  that  certain  stories 
which  seemed  urational  or  irreverent,  when  told  of 
gods  such  as  Jupiter  or  ApoUo  or  Athene,  became 
perfectly  inteUigible  if   accepted  as  they  were  told 
originally  of  the  sky  or  the  sun  or  the  dawn.     I  have 
protested  again  and  again  against  the  theory  that 
there  is  but  one  key  to  unlock  all  the  secret  di'awers 
of  ancient  mythology.     As  httle  as  the  sun  is  the 
whole  of  nature  is  aucient  mythology  wholly  solar. 
But  as  certainly  as  the  sun,  with  all  that  is  dependent 
on  it,  forms  the  most  prominent,  half  natural,  and 
half  supernatural  object  in  the  thoughts  of  the  ancient 
and  even  of  the  modem  world,  are  solar  myths  a  most 
important  ingredient  in  the  language,  the  traditions, 
and  the  rehgion  of  the  whole  humaa  race.     If  in 
working  out  this  theory  my  interpretation  of  passages 
in  Homer  or  in  the  Veda  has  been  wrong,  ii  my  ap- 


66 


POSTSCRIPT    TO    SOLAR   MYTHS. 


POSTSCRIPT    TO    SOLAR   MYTHS. 


67 


plication  of  phonetic  rules  has  ever  been  inaccurate, 
let  it  be  proved.  Nothing  dehghts  me  more  than 
when  I  am  proved  to  have  been  wrong,  for  in  that 
case  I  always  carry  away  something  that  is  worth 
having.  If,  for  instance,  Mr.  Gladstone  or  any  other 
Greek  scholai*  could  prove  that  in  Greek  short  e 
without  the  spiritus  asper  can  ever  become  the  long 
7f  with  the  spiritus  asper,  then  I  should  confess  that 
my  protest  against  deriving  the  name  of  Hera  from 
^ra,  the  earth,  was  futile,  and  I  should  as  readily  ac- 
cept the  origiual  chthonic  character  of  the  wife  of 
Zeus  as  I  should  accept  Mr.  Gladstone's  identification 
of  breakfast  and  dinner,  provided  always  that  he  can 
produce  one  single  case  from  the  whole  of  the  French 
language  in  which  dt  or  dis  (in  diner  or  disner)  rep- 
resents an  original  dejeu  (in  dejeuner.  That  there 
are  chthonic  elements  in  the  character  of  Hera  I 
readily  allow ;  but  that  does  not  prove  that  one  of  her 
names  might  not  have  been  the  heavenly  or  the  brill- 
iant goddess,  just  as  in  Latin  she  is  called  Juno,  the 
female  counterpai't  of  Ju-piter,  her  heavenly  consort. 
Earth  as  well  as  heaven,  nay,  every  part  of  nature,  is 
liable  to  mythological  metamorphosis ;  and  I  have 
fried  to  show  how  many  old  sayings  concerning 
heaven,  eaith,  the  sun,  the  moon,  the  stars,  day  and 
night,  months,  seasons  and  years,  rivers  and  mountains, 
men  and  animals,  the  spirits  of  the  departed,  or  even 
mere  abstractions,  such  as  honor  or  virtue,  have  been 
rolled  up  in  time  into  that  curious  conglomerate  of 
ancient  thought  which,  for  want  of  a  better  name,  we 
call  mythology. 

This  view  I  am  prepared  to  defend  with  the  same 
lirm  conviction  with  which  I  staited  it  nearly  forty 
vears  ago.     Nor  do  I  see  that  Mi\  Gladstone's  argu- 


ments have  shattered  or  even  touched  my  old  position^ 
He  maintains  that  in  the  Olympian  mythology,  such 
as  we  find  it  in  the  Homeric  poems,  the  Greek  gods 
are    no    longer    mere    representatives    of    physical 
phenomena,  but  genuine   nheanthromorphic"  con- 
ceptions.     This    is    the    very   view   which  I   have 
defended,  though  I  confess  I  have  sometimes  won- 
dered whether  the  ancient  popular  poets  had  really 
no  suspicion  whatever  of  the  original  character  of 
their   gods,  while  some  of  the    earhest  Greek  phi- 
losophers were  so  fully  conscious  of  it.   But  however 
that  may  be,  the  Homeric  mythology,  as  weU  as  the 
Homeiic  language,  has  surely  its  antecedents.    Maiiy 
of  its  anomalous  legends  and  its  irregular  verbs  did 
Bot  even  spring  into  existence  on  Greek  soil  for  they 
can  be  traced  in  India  and  even  in  Iceland,  though 
certainly  not,  as  Mr.  Gladstone  imphes  (P^ge  H), 
in  Egypt,  still  less  in  Palestine.     It  is  with  these 
antecedents,  with  the  prehistoric  of  Aryan  mythology, 
that  comparative  mythologists  axe  chiefly  concerned, 
and  suiely  m.  Gladstone  would  be  the  last  scholar 
to  be  satisfied  with  merely  superficial  compansons. 
There  is  a  true  radicalism  in  scholarship,  too,  which 
despises  all  measures  which  do  not  go  to  the  roots  oi 
thinj-s.     Mr.  Gladstone  wai-ns  us  not  to  trust  too 
much  to  etymology ;  he  might  as  weU  warn  the  ex- 
plorer  of  Oxford  clay  not  to  beheve  too  much  m  that 
sohd  i?ranite  which  each  honest  digger  will  find,  if 
only  he  digs  deep  enough.     Etymology  represents 
the  prehistoric  period  in  human  language  and  human 
thought,  and  the  Hght  which  it  has  shed  on  later 
periods  is   certainly  not    less  important  than    he 
lessons  which  geology  and  paleontology  have  added 
to  the  study  of  mankind.    As  in  the  beautiful  Campo 


68 


POSTSCRIPT  TO  SOLAR  MYTHS. 


POSTSCHlPt  TO  &OLAR  MYTHS. 


69 


m 


Santo  of  Bologna  we  find,  beneath  the  monuments 
erected  by  the  loving  care  of  living  mourners,  tomb- 
stones—discovered,  one   might    fairly   say,   by  the 
divining  rod  and   disinterred  by  the  indefatigable 
spade  of  Zannoni— which  reveal  to  us  the  daily  life 
and  the  daily  struggles,  the  hopes  and  fears,  of  races, 
whom  we  call  prehistoric,  but  who  were  once  as  tmly 
historic  as  their  conquerors  and  successors,  whether 
Umbrian,  Etruscan,  or  Roman— the  vast  Aryan  cem- 
etery of  language  and  myth,  too,  as  explored  by  many 
patient  diggers,  has  surrendered  tombstones  which 
tell  us  of  the  thoughts,  of  the  faith  and  hope,  of  those 
whose  descendants  we  are,  however  difficult  we  find 
it  to  understand  their  language  and  to  think  their 
thoughts.      Does  IVIi'.  Gladstone  beheve  that  words 
are  ever  without  an  etymology,  or  that  myths  are 
ever  without  reason  ?    And,  if  not,  does  he  think  it  is 
of  no  importance  to  know  why  Zeus  was  first  called 
Zeus,  or  why  Achilleus,  like  other  Aryan  heroes,  was 
beheved  to  be  vuhierable  in  one  point  only  1     Mr. 
Gladstone  seems  afraid  that  prehistoric  ideas  might 
be  transferred  to  historic  times,  and,  speaking  of  the 
future,   he  writes :    *'  Strange,   indeed,  will  be   the 
effect  of  such  a  system,  if  applied  to  our  own  case  at 
some  date  in  the  far-off  future ;  for  it  will  be  shown 
inter  alia,  that  there  were  no  priests,  but  only  pres- 
byters, in  any  portion  of  Western  Chiistendom  ;  that 
our  dukes  were  simply  generals  leading  us  in  war ; 
that  we  broke  our  fast  at  eight  in  the  evening  (for 
diner  is  but  a  compression  of  dejeuner) ;  and  even, 
possibly,  that  one  of  the  noblest  and  most  famous 
EngHsh  houses  pursued  habitually  the  humble  occu- 
pation of  a  pig-driver." 

I  do  not  anticipate  any  such  anachronisms;  as  httle 


do  I  expect  that  future  historians  will  mistake  our 
lords  for  bread-givers  {hldf-ord)  or  our  parliamentai-y 
whips  for  pig-di'ivers.  And  yet  every  one  of  the 
words  which  Mr.  Gladstone  quotes,  if  but  rightly  m- 
terpreted,  has  some  important  lessons  to  teach  those 
who  will  come  after  us. 

It  is  weU  that  they  should  know  that  originaUy 
priests  were  not  different  from  laymen,  and  that  they 
were  weU  satisfied  with  the  simple  title  of  presbyters 
or  elders,  being  elders  not  only  in  age,  but  in  wis- 
dom, self-denial,  and  in  tolerance. 

It  is  well  that  they  should  know,  if  it  is  so,  that  the 
ancestor  of  one  of  the  noblest  and  most  famous 
Enghsh  houses  was  a  pig-driver,  if  thus  they  may 
leai-n  that  there  was  a  time  when  a  noble  career  was 
open  in  England  even  to  the  humblest  ranks. 

It  is  well  that  they  should  know  that  dukes  were 
not  always  mere  possessors  of  large  wealth  which 
they  had  not  earned  themselves,  but  that  origmally 
they  were  in  very  deed  leaders  in  battle,  leaders  m 
thought,  and  ready  to  court   the  place  of   danger 
whether  against  battahons  or  against  the  tumult  of 
vulgar  error  and  prejudice.     IVIr.  Gladstone  need  not 
be  afraid  that  futui'e  historians  wiU  ever  mistake  him 
for  a  merely  titular  duke,  though  they  will  speak  of 
him  as  we  do,  as  our  leader,  as  a  true  Duca  e  Maes- 
tro 'if  not  always  against  the  tumult  of  vulgar  error 
and  prejudice,  yet,  without  fail,  whenever  any  wrongs 
had  to  be  righted,  effete  privileges  to  be  abolished, 
and  lessons  of  wisdom  and  moderation,  however  dis- 
tasteful, to  be  taught  to  the  strong  and  the  weak,  to 
the  rich  and  the  poor.  F.  Max  Muller. 

Florence,  November  7,  1885. 


PROEM  TO    GENESIS:    A    PLEA    FOR   A  FAIR 

TRIAL. 

A    KEPLY    TO    PROFESSOKS    HUXLEY    AND    MULLEB. 


BY    W.    E.    GLADSTONE. 

Vous  avez  une  manure  si  amiable  {Vannoncer  les 
phis  mauvaises  nouvelles,  qu'elles  perdefitpar  Id  de 
leurs  d'es  agremeiit*     So  wi'ote,  de  haut  en  bas,^  the 
Duchess  of  York  to    Beau  Brummell,  sixty  or  sev- 
enty years  back  (Life,  by  Jesse,  i,  260) ;  and  so  write 
I,  de  bas  en  haut.X  to  the  two  very  eminent  champions 
who  have  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  of  December 
entered  appeai'ances  on  behalf  of  Dr.  EeviUe's  I'role- 
ffom^nes,  with  a  decisiveness  of  tone,  at  aU  events, 
which  admits  of  no  mistake— Professor  Huxley  and 
Professor  Max  Mtiller.     My  first  duty  is  to  acknowl- 
edge   in   both    cases    the    abundant    courtesy   and 
indulgence  with  which  I  am  personally  treated.    And 
my  first  thought  is  that,  where  even  disagreement  is 
made  in  a  manner  pleasant,  it  wiU  be  a  duty  to  search 
and  see  if  there  be  any  points  of  agreement  or  ap- 
proximation, which  will  be  more  pleasant  stiU.     This 
indulgence  and  courtesy  deserves  in  the  case  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley  a  special  warmth  of  acknowledgment, 
because,  while  thus  more  than  liberal  to  the  individ- 
ual, he  has  for  the  class  of  ReconcHers,  in  which  he 
places  me,  an  unconcealed    and   unmeasured  scorn. 
These  are  they  who  impose  upon  man  a  burden  of 

"T^u  have  so  charming  a  manner  of  telling  the  worst  news 
that  it  loses  its  disagreeahleness. 
t  The  high  to  the  low.  tThe  low  to  the  high. 


PEOEM    TO   GENESIS. 


71 


false  science  in  the  name  ofreligionr^^<^  dictate  as 
a  divine  command  "an  impUcit  belief  in  the  cos^ 
mogony  of  Genesis ; "  and  who  "  stir  unmsdom  and 
fanaticism  to   their  depths."    Judgments   so   severe 
should  surely  be  supported  by  citation  orot^er  evi- 
dence, for  which  I  look  in  vain.    To  some  they  might 
suggest   the  idea  that  passion  may  sometimes  un- 
aw^es.  intrude   even  withm    the  precincts   of  the 
temple  of  science.     But  I  admit  that  a  greater  mas  er 
of  his  art  may  well  be  provoked,  when  he  finds  his 
materials  tumbled  about  by  incapable  hands  and  may 
mistake  for  irreverence  what  is  only  want  of  skUL 

While    acknowledging    the    gieat    courtesy  with 
^vhich  Professor  Huxley  treats  his  antagomsts  indi- 
vidually, and  whUe  simply  listening  to  his  denuncia- 
tions  of   the  Eeconcilers  as  one  hstens  to  distan 
thunders,  with  a  sort  of  sense  that  after  all  they  wiU 
do  no  great  harm,  I  must  presume  to  animadvert 
with  considerable  freedom  upon  his  method;  upon 
the  sweeping  character  of  his  advocacy ;  upon  his 
perceptible  exaggeration  of  points  m  controversy, 
upon  his  mode  of  dealing  with  authorities ;  and  upon 
the  curious  fallacy  of  substitution  by  which  he  enables 
himself  to   found  the  widest  proscnpUons   of  the 
claim  of  the  book  of  Genesis  to  contain  a  divme  rec- 
ord upon  a  reasoned  impeachment  of  its  scientific 
a<;curacy  in,  as  I  shall  show,  a  single  particular. 

As  to  the  first  of  these  topics,  nothing  can  be  more 
equitable  than  Professor  Huxley's  intention  to  mter- 
vene  as  a  "  science  proctor  "  in  that  part  of  tie  aeba^ 
raised  by  M.  R^viUe,  "  to  which  he  proposes  to 
xXct  his  observations."  This  is  the  part  on 
which  he  proposes  in  his  first  page  to  report  as  a 
student-and  every  reader  wiU  inwardly  add,  as  one 


72 


PROEM    TO   GENESIS. 


of  the  most  eminent  among  all  students — of  natural 
science.  Now  this  is  not  the  cosmogonical  part  of 
the  account  in  Genesis.  On  Genesis  i,  1-19,  contain- 
ing the  cosmogony,  he  does  not  report  as  an  expert, 
but  refers  us  to  "  those  who  are  specially  conversant 
with  the  sciences  involved  ; "  adding  his  opinion  about 
their  opinions.  Yet  in  his  second  page,  without 
making  any  reference  to  this  broad  distinction,  he  at 
once  forgets  the  just  limitation  of  his  first,  and  om* 
'*proctor  for  science "  pronounces  on  M.  Reville's 
estimate,  not  of  the  fourfold  succession  in  the  strati- 
fication of  the  earth,  but  of  "the  account  of  the 
creation  given  in  the  book  of  Genesis,"  that  its  terms 
are  as  "  respectful  as  in  his  judgment  they  are  just." 
Thus  the  proctorship  for  science,  justly  assumed 
for  matters  within  his  province  as  a  student,  is 
rather  hastily  extended  to  matters  which  he  himself 
declares  to  be  beyond  it.  In  truth  it  will  appear 
that  as  there  are  many  roads  to  heaven  with  one  end- 
ing, so,  provided  only  a  man  arrives  at  the  conclusion 
that  the  great  Proem  of  Genesis  lends  no  support  to 
the  argument  for  revelation,  it  does  not  much  matter 
how  he  gets  there.  For  in  this  "just"  account  of  the 
creation  I  have  shown  that  M.  Reville  supports  his 
accusation  of  scientific  error  by  three  pai'ticulars : 
that  in  the  first  he  contradicts  the  judgment  of  schol- 
ai*8  on  the  sense  of  the  original ;  in  the  second  ho 
both  misquotes  (by  inadvertence)  the  tenns  of  the 
text,  and  overlooks  the  distinction  made  so  palpable 
(if  not  earher)  half  a  centuiy  ago,  by  the  work  of  Di\ 
Buckland  (Bridgewater  Treatise,  vol.  i,  pp.  19-28),  be- 
tween hara  and  asa;  while  the  third  proceeds  on  the 
assumption  that  there  could  be  no  light  to  produce  veg- 
etation, except  Hght  derived  from  a  visible  sun.  These 


PROEM   TO   GENESIS. 


73 


thi-ee  charges  constitute  the  head  and  front  of  M. 
Reville's  indictment  against  the  cosmogony ;  and  the 
fatal  flaws  in  them,  without  any  notice  or  defense, 
are  now  all  taken  under  the  mantle  of  our  science 
proctor,  who  returns  to  the  chai'ge  at  the  close  of  his 
article,  and  again  dismisses  with  comprehensive  honor 
as  "  wise  and  moderate  "  what  he  had  ushered  in  as 
reverent  and  just.     So  much  for  the  sweeping,  undis- 
ciiminatmg   character   of   an   advocacy  which,  in   a 
scientific  waiter,  we  might  perhaps  have  expected  to 
be  carefully  limited  and  defined. 

I  take  next  the  exaggeration  which  appears  to  me 
to  mark  unhappHy  Professor  Huxley's  method.  Un- 
der this  head  I  include  all  needless  multiplication  of 
points  of  controversy,  whether  in  the  form  of  over- 
stating differences,  or  understating  agreements,  with 

an  adversary. 

As  I  have  hved  for  more  than  half  a  century  in  an 
atmosphere  of  contention,  my  stock  of  controversial 
fire  has  perhaps  become  abnormally  low ;  while  Pro- 
fessor Huxley,  who  has  been  inhabiting  the  Elysian 
regions   of   science,    the   edita   docirind    sapihitum 
templa  serena  (Lucr.  ii,  8),  may  be  enjoying  all  the 
freshness  of  an  unjaded  appetite.     Certainly  one  of 
the  lessons  hfe  has  taught  me  is  that  where  there  is 
known  to  be  a  common  object,  the  pursuit  of  truth, 
there  should  also  be  a  studious  desii'e  to  interpret  the 
adversary  in  the  best  sense  his  words  Tvill  f aii'ly  beai' ; 
to  avoid  whatever  widens  the  breach  ;    and  to  make 
the  most  of  whatever  tends  to  naiTOW  it.     These  I 
hold  to  be  part  of  the  laws  of  knightly  tournament. 

I  do  not,  therefore,  fully  understand  why  Professor 
Huxley  makes  it  a  matter  of  objection  to  me  that,  in 
rebuking  a  ^rnier  who  had  treated  evolution  whole- 


74 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


75 


If 


sale  as  a  novelty  in  the  world,  I  cited  a  few  old 
instances  of  moral  and  historical  evolution  only,  and 
did  not  extend  my  front  by  examining  English  sages 
and  the  founders  of  Greek  philosophy.  Nor  why, 
when  I  have  spoken  of  physical  evolution  as  of  a  thing 
to  me  most  acceptable,  but  not  yet  in  its  rigor  (to  my 
knowledge)  proved,  we  have  only  the  rather  niggardly 
acknowledgment  that  I  have  made  "  the  most  oblique 
admissions  of  a  possible  value."  Thus  it  is  when 
agreement  is  threatened,  but  far  otherwise  when 
differences  ai'e  to  be  blazoned.  When  I  have  spoken 
of  the  succession  of  orders  in  the  most  general  terms 
only,  this  is  declared  a  sharply  divided  succession  in 
which  the  last  species  of  one  cannot  overlap  the  first 
species  of  another.  "WTien  I  have  pleaded  on  simple 
grounds  of  reasoning  for  the  supposition  of  a  sub- 
stantial correspondence  between  Genesis  i  and  science, 
have  waived  all  questions  of  a  verbal  inspiration,  all 
question  whether  the  whole  of  the  statements  can 
now  be  made  good,  I  am  treated  as  one  of  those  who 
impose  "  in  the  name  of  religion  "  as  a  divine  requisi- 
tion "  an  implicit  belief  in  the  accuracy  of  the  cos- 
mogony of  Genesis,"  and  who  deserve  to  have  their 
heads  broken  in  consequence. 

I  have  urged  nothing  "  in  the  name  of  rehgion." 
I  have  sought  to  adduce  probable  evidence  that  a 
guidance  more  than  human  lies  within  the  great 
Proem  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  just  as  I  might  adduce 
probable  evidence  to  show  that  Francis  did  or  did  not 
write  Jimius,  that  William  the  Third  was  or  was  not 
responsible  for  the  massacre  of  Glencoe ;  I  have  ex- 
pressly excepted  detail,  and  have  stated  that  in  my 
inquiiy  ''  the  authority  of  scripture  cannot  be  alleged 
in  proof  of  a  primitive  revelation."    I  object  to  all 


these  exaggerations  of   charge,  as  savoring  of  the 
spirit  of  the  Inquisition,  and  as  restraints  on  hterary 

freedom. 

My  next  obsei-vation  as  to  the  professor  s  method 

refers  to  his  treatment  of  authorities. 

In  one  passage  (p.  46)  Mr.  Huxley  expresses  his  re- 
gret that  I  have  not  named  my  authority  for  the  state- 
ment made  concerning  the  fourfold  succession,  in  order 
that  he  might  have  transferred  his  attentions  from 
myself  to  a  new  delinquent.     Now,' pubUshed  works 
ai-e  (as  I  may  show)  a  fair  subject  for  reference.     But 
as  to  pointing  out  any  person  who  might  have  favored 
me  with  his  views  in  private  correspondence,  I  own 
that  I  should  have  some  scruple  in  handmg  him  over 
to  be  piUoried  as  a  Reconciler,  and  to  be  pelted  with 
charges  of  unwisdom  and  fanaticism,  which  I  myseH, 
from  long  use,  am  perfectly  content  to  bear. 

I   did   refer   to   three  great   and  famous   names: 
those  of  Cuvier,  Sir  John  Herschel,  and  WheweU. 
Mr.  Huxley  speaks  of  me  as  having  quoted  them  m 
support  of  my  case  on  the  fourfold  succession;  and 
at  the  same  time  notices  that  I  admitted  Cuvier  not 
to  be  a  recent  authority,  which  in  geology  proper  is, 
I  beUeve,  nearly  equivalent  to  saying  he  is,  for  par- 
ticulai's,  no  authority  at  all.     This  recital  is  singu- 
lai'ly  inaccurate.     I  cited  them,  not  with  reference  to 
the  fourfold  succession,  but  generally  for  "  the  gen- 
eral accordance  of  the  Mosaic  cosmogony  with  the 
results  of  modem  inquiry,"  and  particularly  in  con- 
nection with  the  nebular  hypothesis.     It  is  the  cos- 
mogony (Gen.  i,  1-19),  not  the  fourfold  succession, 
which  was  the  sole  object  of  Reville's  attack,  and  the 
main  object  of  my  defense,  and  which  is  the  largest 
portion  of  the  whole  subject.     WiU  Mr.  Huxley  vent- 


76 


i>roem  to  genesis. 


ui-e  to  say  that  Cuvier  is  an  unavailable  authority,  or 
that  Herschel  and  WTiewell  are  other  than  great  and 
venerable  names,  with  reference  to  the  cosmogony? 
Yet  he  has  quietly  set  them  aside  without  notice ; 
and  they  with  many  more  are  inclusively  bespattered 
with  the  charges  which  he  has  launched  against  the 
pestilent  tribe  of  Keconcilers. 

My  fourth  and  last  observation  on  the  "  method" 
of  Professor  Huxley  is  that,  after  discussing  a  part, 
and  that  not  the  most  considerable  pait,  of  the  Proem 
of  Genesis,  he  has  broadly  pronounced  upon  the 
whole.  This  is  a  mode  of  reasoning  which  logic  re- 
jects, and  which  I  presume  to  savor  more  of  hcense 
than  of  science.  The  foui'fold  succession  is  con- 
demned w4th  ai-gument;  the  cosmogony  is  thrown 
into  the  bargain.  True,  ]VIi\  Huxley  refers  in  a  single 
sentence  to  three  detached  points  of  it  partially 
touched  in  my  observations  (p.  50).  But  all  my  ax- 
gument,  the  chief  argument  of  my  paper,  leads  up  to 
the  nebular  or  rotary  hypothesis.  This  hypothesis, 
with  the  authorities  cited — of  whom  one  is  the  author 
of  "  Yestiges  of  Creation  " — is  inclusively  condemned, 
and  without  a  word  vouchsafed  to  it. 

I  shall  presently  express  my  gratitude  for  the  scien- 
tific pait  of  Mr.  Huxley's  paper.  But  there  are  two 
sides  to  the  question.  The  whole  matter  at  issue  is  : 
1.  A  compai-ison  between  the  probable  meaning  of 
the  Proem  to  Genesis  and  the  results  of  cosmologicaJ 
and  geological  science ;  2.  The  question  whether  this 
comparison  favors  or  does  not  favor  the  belief  that 
an  element  of  divine  knowledge— knowledge  which 
was  not  accessible  to  the  simple  action  of  the  human 
faculties— is  conveyed  to  us  in  this  Proem.  It  is  not 
enough  to  be  accurate  in  one  term  of  a  compaiison, 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 


77 


unless  we  are  accurate  in  both.     A  master  of  Enghsh 
may  speak  the  vilest  and  most  blundering  French. 
I  do  not  think  ]VIi\  Huxley  has  ever  endeavored  to 
understand  what  is  the  idea,  what  is  the  intention, 
which  his  opponent  ascribes  to  the  Mosaic  writer,  or 
what  is  the  conception  which  his  opponent  forms  of 
the  weighty  word  Bevelation.     He  holds  the  writer 
responsible  for  scientific  precision ;  I  look  for  nothing 
of  the  kind,  but  assign  to  him  a  statement  general, 
which  admits  exceptions ;  popular,  which  aims  mainly 
at  producing  moral  impressions ;  summary,  which  can 
not  but  be  open  to  more  or  less  of  cnticism  in  detail. 
He  thinks  it  is  a  lectui'e.     I  think  it  is  a  sermon.    He 
desciibes  living  creatui'es  by  structure.     The  Mosaic 
writer  describes  them  by  habitat.     Both  I  suppose 
ai-e  right.     I   suppose   that   description  by   habitat 
would°be  unavailing  for  the  purposes  of  science.     I 
feel  sui-e  that  description  by  structure,  such  as  the 
geologists  supply,  would  have  been  unavaihng  for  the 
purpose  of   summary  teaching  with   religious   aim. 
Of  Revelation  I  will  speak  by  and  by. 

In  order  to  institute  with  profit  the  comparison 
now  in  view,  the  very  first  thing  necessary  is  to  de- 
termine, so  fax  as  the  subject-matter  allows,  what  it 
was  that  the  Pentateuchal  or  Mosaic  writer  designed 
to  convey  to  the  minds  of  those  for  whom  he  wrote. 
The  case  is,  in  more  ways  than  one,  I  conceive,  the 
direct  reverse  of  that  which  the  professor  has  alleged. 
It  is  not  bringing  Science  to  be  tried  at  the  bar  of 
Religion.  It  is  bringing  Rehgion,  so  far  as  it  is  rep- 
resented by  this  pai't  of  the  holy  scriptures,  to  be 
tried  at  the  bar  of  Science.  The  indictment  against 
the  Pentateuchal  writer  is,  that  he  has  ^vritten  what 
is  scientifically  untrue.     We  have  to  find  then  in  the 


78 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 


first  place  what  it  is  that  he  has  written,  according  to 
the  text,  not  an  inerrable  text,  as  it  now  stands  be- 
fore us.  .     />,         • 

First,  I  assume  there  is  no  dispute  that  in  Genesis 
i,  20-27,  he  has  represented  a  fourfold  sequence  or 
succession  of  living  organisms.  Aware  of  my  own 
inability  to  define  in  any  tolerable  manner  the  classes 
of  these  organisms,  I  recorted  to  the  general  phrases 
water  -  population,  air  -  popu:ation,  land  -  population. 
The  immediate  purpose  of  these  phrases  was  not  to 
correspond  with  the  classifications  of  Science,  but  to 
bring  together  in  brief  and  convenient  form  the 
larger  and  more  vai'ied  modes  of  expression  used  m 
verses  20,  21,  24,  25,  of  the  chapter. 

I  think,  however,  I  have  been  to  blame  for  havmg 
brought  into  a  contact  with  science,  which  was  not 
sufficiently  defined,   terms    that    have  no  scientific 
meaning:  water-population,  air-population,  and  (two- 
fold) land-population.     I  shall  now  discai'd  them  and 
shall  substitute  others,  which  have  the  double  advan^ 
tage  of  being  used  by  geologists,  and  perhaps  of  ex- 
pressing better  than  my  phi-ases  what  was  m  the 
mind  of  the  Mosaic  writer.     These  aie  the  words : 
1  fishes;  2,  birds;  3,  mammals  ;*  4,  man.     By  all,  I 
think  it  will  be  felt  that  the  first  object  is  to  know 
what 'the  Pentateuchal  vniter  means.     The  relation 
of  his  meaning  to  science  is  essential,  but,  m  orderly 
argumentation,  subsequent.     The  matter  now  before 
us  is  a  matter  of  reasonable  and  probable  mterpreta- 
tion      What  is  the  proper  key  to  this  hermeneutic 
work  ?     In  my  opinion  it  is  to  be  found  in  a  just  esti- 

*I^vish  to  be  understood  as  speaking  here  of  the  higher  or 
ordinary  mammals,  which  alone  I  assume  to  have  been  prob- 
ably  known  to  the  Mosaic  writer. 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 


79 


mate  of  the  purpose  with  which  the  author  wrote,  and. 
with  which  the  book  of  Genesis  was,  in  this  part  of 
it,  either  composed  or  compiled. 

If  this  be  the  true  point  of  departure,  it  opens  up 
a  question  of  extreme  interest,  at  which  I  have  but 
faintly  glanced  in  my  paper,  and  which  is  nowhere 
touched  in  the  reply  to  me.     WTiat  proper  place  has 
such  a  composition  as  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  in 
such  a  work  as  the  scriptures  of  the  Old  Testament  1 
Theyai-e  indisputably  written  with  a  religious  aim;; 
and  their  sub-matter  is  rehgious.     We  may  describe 
this  aim  in  various  ways.     For  the  present  purpose, 
suffice  it  to  say  they  are  conversant  with  behef  in 
God,    with  inculcation   of    duties   founded   en   that 
behef,  with  history  and  prophecy  obviously  having  it 
for  their  central  point.     But  this  chapter,  at  the 
least  down  to  verse   25,   and  perhaps   throughout, 
stands  on  a  different  ground.     In  concise  and  rapid 
outhne,  it  traverses  a  vast  region  of  physics.     It  is 
easy  to  understand  St.  Paul  when  he  speaks  of  the 
world  as  beaiing  witness  to  God  (Acts  xiv,  17 ;  Ko- 
tnans  i,  20).     AMiat  he  said  was  capable  of  being  ver- 
ified or  tested  by  the  common  experimental  knowl- 
edge of  all  who  heard  him.     Of  it,  of  oui-  savior's 
mention  of  the  hhes— and  may  it  not  be  said  gener- 
ally of  the  references  in  scriptm*e  to  natural  knowl- 
edge ?— they  are  at  once  accounted  for  by  the  posi- 
tions in  which  they  stand.     But  this  first  chapter  of 
Genesis    professes    to  set  out    in  its  own  way  a 
large  and  comprehensive  scheme  of  physical  facts: 
the  transition  from  chaos  to  kosmos,  from  the  inam- 
mate  to  hfe,  from  hfe  in  its  lower  orders  to  man. 
Being  knowledge  of  an  order  anterior  to  the  creation 
of  Adamic  man,  it  was  beyond  verification,  as  bemg 


80 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 


beyond  experience.     As  a  physical  exposition  in  min- 
iature, it  stands  alone  in  the  sacred  record.     And,  as 
this  singular  composition  is  sohtary  in  the  Bible,  so 
it  seems  to  be  hardly  less  sohtary  in  the  sa^^red  books 
of  the  world.     ^'  The  only  important  resemblance  of 
any  ancient  cosmogony  with  the  scriptural  accouiit, 
is  to  be  found  in  the  Persian  or  Zoroastrian ;"  this 
Bishop  Browne  (Note  on  Gen.  i,  5)  proceeds  to  ac- 
count for  on  the  foUowing  among  other  grounds: 
that  Zoroaster  was  probably  brought  into  contact 
with  the  Hebrews,  and  even  perhaps  with  the  prophet 
Daniel ;  a  supposition  which  supplies  the  groundwork 
of  a  recent  and  remai'kable  romance,  not  proceeding 
from  a  Chiistian  school  ("  Zoroaster,"  by  F.  M.  Craw- 
ford.    Macmillan,  1885).     Again,  the  Proem  does  not 
carry   any   Egyptian   mai'ks.     In    the   twenty-seven 
thousand  lines  of  Homer,  archaic  as  they  are  and  ever 
turning  to  the  past,  there  is,  I  think,  only  one  (H. 
vii  99)  which  belongs  to  physiology.     The  beautiful 
sketch  of   a   cosmogony  by   Ovid  (Ovid,  Metam    i, 
1-38)  seems  in  considerable  degi'ee  to  follow  the  Mo- 
saic outlme  ;  but  it  was  composed  at  a  time  when  the 
treasure  of  the  Hebrew  records  had  been  for  two 
centuiies  imparted,  through  the  Septuagint,  to  the 

Aryan  nations. 

Professor  Huxley,  if  I  understand  him  rightly,  con- 
siders the  Mosaic  witer,  not  perhaps  as  having 
intended  to  embrace  the  whole  truth  of  science  m  the 
province  of  geology,  but  at  least  as  hable  to  be  con- 
victed of  scientific  worthlessness  if  his  language  wnl 
not  stand  the  test  of  this  construction.  Thus  the 
-  water-population"  is  to  include  "  the  innumerable 
hosts  of  marine  invertebrated  animals."  It  seems  to 
me  that  these  discoveries,  taken  as  a  whole  and  also 


PROEM    TO   GENESIS. 


81 


taken  in  all  their  parts  and  particulars,  do  not  afford 
a  proper,  I 'mean  a  rational,  standard  for  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Mosaic  writer ;  that  the  recent  dis- 
covery of  the  Siluiian  scorpion,  a  highly  organized 
animal,  is  of  httle  moment  either  way  to  the  question 
now  before  us  ;*  that  it  is  not  an  account  of  the  ex- 
tinct species  which  we  should  consider  the  Mosaic 
writer  as  intending  to  convey;  that  while  his  word^ 
are  capable  of  covering  them,  as  the  oikoumen^  of 
the  New  Testament  cover  the  red  and  yellow  man, 
the  rules  of  rational  construction  recommend  and  re- 
quu-e  our  assignmg  to  them  a  more  limited  meaning, 
which  I  will  presently  describe. 

Another  material  point  in  Professor  Huxley's  inter- 
pretation appears  to  me  to  lie  altogether  beyond  the 
natural  force  of  the  words,  and  to  be  of  an  arbitrary 
chai-acter.     He  includes  in  it  the  proposition  that  the 
production  of  the  respective  orders  was  affected  dm'ing 
each  of   "  three    distinct   and   successive  periods  of 
time;    and  only  during  those  periods  of  time;"   or 
agam',  in  one  of   these,  ''  and  not  at   any  other  of 
these';"  as,  in  a  series  of  games  at  chess,  one  is  done 
before  another  begins;  or  as  in  a  "  march-past,"  one 
regiment  goes  before  another  comes.     No  doubt  there 
may  be  a  degree  of  literalism  which  will  even  suffice  to 
show  that,  as  "  as  every  winged  fowl"  was  produced  on 
the  fourth  day  of  the  Hexaemeron,  therefore  the  birth 
of  new  fowls  continually  is  a  contradiction  to  the  text 
of    Genesis.     But  does  not  the  equity  of  common 
sense  requke  us  to  understand  simply  that  the  order 


♦Because  my  argument  in  no  way  requires  universal  ac- 
cordance, wliat  bearing  the  scorpion  may  have  on  any  current 
scientific  hypothesis,  it  is  not  for  me  to  say. 


82 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


83 


of  "  winged  fowl,"  whatever  that  may  mean,  took  its 
place  in  creation  at  a  certain  time,  and  th'at  from  that 
time  its  various  component  classes  were  in  course  of 
production?  Is  it  not  the  fact  that  in  synoptical 
statements  of  successive  events,  distributed  in  time, 
for  the  sake  of  producing  easy  and  clear  impressions, 
general  truth  is  aimed  at,  and  periods  ai*e  allowed  to 
overlap  1  If,  with  such  a  view,  we  aiTange  the  schools 
of  Greek  philosophy  in  numerical  order,  according  to 
the  dates  of  their  inception,  we  do  not  mean  that  one 
expired  before  another  was  founded.  If  the  archaeol- 
ogist describes  to  us  as  successive  in  time  the  ages  of 
stone,  bronze,  and  iron,*  he  certainly  does  not  mean 
that  no  kinds  of  stone  implement  were  invented  after 
bronze  began,  or  no  kinds  of  bronze  after  iron  began. 
When  Thucydides  said  that  the  ancient  limited  mon- 
archies were  succeeded  by  tyrannies,  he  did  not  mean 
that  all  the  monarchs  died  at  once,  and  a  set  of  ty- 
rants, like  Deucalion's  men,  rose  up  and  took  their 
places.  Woe  be,  I  should  say,  to  anyone  who  tries 
summarily  to  present  in  series  the  phases  of  ancient 
facts,  if  they  are  to  be  judged  under  the  rule  of  Pro- 
fessor Huxley. 

Proceeding,  on  what  I  hold  to  be  open  ground,  to 
state  my  own  idea  of  the  tme  key  to  the  meaning  of 
the  Mosaic  record,  I  suggest  that  it  was  intended  to 
give  moral,  and  not  scientific,  instruction  to  those  for 


*I  use  this  enumeration  to  illustrate  an  argument,  but  I 
must,  even  in  so  using  it,  enter  a  caveat  against  its  particu- 
lars. I  do  not  conceive  it  to  be  either  probable  or  historical 
that,  as  a  general  rule,  mankind  passed  from  the  use  of  stone; 
implements  to  the  use  of  bronze,  a  composite  metal,  witliout 
passing  through  some  intermediate  (longer  or  shorter)  period 
of  copper. 


whom  it  was  written.     That  for  the  Adamic  race,  re- 
cent on  the  earth,  and  young  in  faculties,  the  tradi- 
tions   here    incorporated,   which  were  probably  lar 
older  than  the  book,  had  a  natural  and  a  highly  moral 
pui-pose  in  conveying  to  their  mmds  a  hvely  sense  of 
the  wise  and  loving  care  with  which  the  almighty 
father,  who  demanded  much  at  theu-  hands,  had  be- 
forehand given  them  much,  in  the  provident  adapta- 
tion of  the  worid  to  be  theu-  dwelHng-place,  aud  of 
the  created  orders  of  theii'  use  and  mle.     It  appears 
to  me  that,  given  the  very  nature  of  the  scriptures, 
this  is  clearly  the  rational  point  of  view.     If  it  is  so, 
then  it  foUows  that  just  as  the  tradition  described 
eai'th,  au',  and  heaven  in  the  manner  in  which  they 
superficially  presented  themselves  to  the  daily  expe- 
riences of  man — not  scientifically,  but 

The  common  air,  the  sun,  the  skies— 

so  he  spoke  of  fishes,  of  birds,  of  beasts,  of  what  man 
was  most  concerned  with  ;  and,  last  in  the  series,  of 
man  himself,  lai'gely  and  generally,  as  facts  of  his  ex- 
perience ;  from  which  great  moral  lessons  of  wonder, 
gratitude,  and  obedience  were  to  be  deduced,  to  aid 
him  in  the  great  work  of  his  life  training. 

If  further  proof  be  wanting,  that  what  the  Mosaic 
writer  had  in  his  mind  were  the  creatures  with  which 
Adamic  man  was  conversant,  we  have  it  in  the  direct 
form  of  verse  28,  which  gives  to  man  for  meat  the 
fruit  of  every  seed-yielding  tree,  and  every  seed- 
yielding  herb,  and  the  dominion  of  every  beast,  fowl, 
and  reptile  hving.  There  is  here  a  marked  absence 
of  reference  to  any  but  the  then  Hving  species. 

This,  then,  is  the  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  book, 
and  of  the  tradition,  if,  as  I  suppose,  it  was  before 


.-j^*.,^^^,, 


82 


PBOEM    TO   GENESIS. 


of     winged  fowl,"  whatever  that  may  mean,  took  its 
place  m  creation  at  a  certain  time,  and  that  from  that 
tune  Its  various  component  classes  were  in  course  of 
production?     Is  it  not  the  fact   that  in  synoptical 
statements  of  successive  events,  distributed  in  time 
for  the  saie  of  producing  easy  and  clear  impressions' 
general  truth  is  aimed  at,  and  periods  are  allowed  to 
overlap  t    If,  with  such  a  view,  we  arrange  the  schools 
of  Greek  philosophy  in  numerical  order,  according  to 
the  dates  of  their  inception,  we  do  not  mean  that  one 
expu-ed  before  another  was  founded.     If  the  archmol- 
ogist  describes  to  us  as  successive  in  time  the  ages  of 
stone,  bronze,  and  iron,*  he  certainly  does  not  mean 
Uiat  no  kmds  of  stone  implement  were  invented  after 
Wze  began,  or  no  kinds  of  bronze  after  iron  began, 
men  Thucydides  said  that  the  ancient  limited  mon- 
archies  were  succeeded  by  tynmnies,  he  did  not  mean 
that  all  the  monarchs  died  at  once,  and  a  set  of  ty- 
rants, hke  DeucaKon's  men,  rose  up  and  took  their 
p^es.     Woe  be,  I  should  say,  to  anyone  who  tries 
summarJy  to  present  in  series  the  phases  of  ancient 
facts.  If  they  are  to  be  judged  under  the  rule  of  Pro- 
lessor  Huxley. 

Proceeding,  on  what  I  hold  to  be  open  ground,  to 
state  my  own  idea  of  the  true  key  to  the  meaning  of 
the  Mosaic  record,  I  suggest  that  it  was  intended  to 
givemoral,  and  not  scientific,  instruction  to  those  for 

*I  use  this  enumeration  to  illustrate  an  argument  but  I 

ars     I  do  not  conceive  ,t  to  be  either  probable  or  historical 

hat  as  a  general  rule,  mankind  passed  from  the  use  of  s  one 

implements  to  the  use  of  bronze,  a  composite  metal,  without 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 


83 


whom  it  was  written.     That  for  the  Adamic  race,  re- 
cent on  the  earth,  and  young  in  faculties,  the  tradi- 
tions   here    incorporated,   which  were  probably  far 
older  than  the  book,  had  a  natural  and  a  highly  moral 
purpose  in  conveying  to  their  minds  a  Hvely  sense  of 
the  wise  and  loving  care  with  which  the  almighty 
father,  who  demanded  much  at  their  hands,  had  be- 
forehand given  them  much,  in  the  provident  adapta- 
tion of  the  world  to  be  their  dwelhng-place,  and  of 
the  created  orders  of  their  use  and  nile.     It  appears 
to  me  that,  given  the  very  nature  of  the  scriptures, 
this  is  clearly  the  rational  point  of  view.     If  it  is  so, 
then  it  follows  that  just  as  the  tradition  described 
earth,  air,  and  heaven  in  the  manner  in  which  they 
superficially  presented  themselves  to  the  daily  expe- 
riences of  man — not  scientifically,  but 

The  common  air,  the  sun,  the  skies— 

so  he  spoke  of  fishes,  of  birds,  of  beasts,  of  what  man 
was  most  concerned  with  ;  and,  last  in  the  series,  of 
man  himself,  largely  and  generally,  as  facts  of  his  ex- 
perience ;  from  which  great  moral  lessons  of  wonder, 
gratitude,  and  obedience  were  to  be  deduced,  to  aid 
him  in  the  great  work  of  his  life  training. 

If  further  proof  be  wanting,  that  what  the  Mosaic 
writer  had  in  his  mind  were  the  creatures  with  which 
Adamic  man  was  conversant,  we  have  it  in  the  direct 
form  of  verse  28,  which  gives  to  man  for  meat  the 
fruit  of  every  seed-yielding  tree,  and  every  seed- 
yielding  herb,  and  the  dominion  of  every  beast,  fowl, 
and  reptile  Hving.  There  is  here  a  marked  absence 
of  reference  to  any  but  the  then  Hving  species. 

This,  then,  is  the  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  book, 
and  of  the  tradition,  if,  as  I  suppose,  it  was  before 


84 


PBOEM    TO    GENESIS. 


the  book,  which  seems  to  me  to  offer  the  most  prob- 
able, and  therefore  the  rational,  guide  to  its  interpret 
tation.  The  question  we  shaU  have  to  face  is  whether 
this  statement  so  understood,  this  majestic  and 
touching  lesson  of  the  childhood  of  Adamic  man, 
stands  in  such  a  relation  to  scientific  truth,  as  far  as 
it  is  now  known,  as  to  give  warrant  to  the  inference 
that  the  guidance  under  which  it  was  composed  was 
more  than  that  of  faculties  merely  human,  at  that 
stage  of  development,  and  likewise  of  information, 
which  belonged  to  the  childhood  of  humanity. 

We  have,  then,  before  us  one  term  of  the  desired 
comparison.     Let  us  now  turn  to  the  other. 

And  here  my  first  duty  is  to  render  my  grateful 
thanks   to   Professor  Huxley  for  having  corrected 
my  either  erroneous  or  superannuated  assumption  as 
to  the  state  of  scientific  opinion  on  the  second  and 
third  terms  of  the  fourfold  succession  of  life.     As 
one  probable   doctor   sufficed   to  make  an  opinion 
probable,  so  the  dissent  of  this  eminent  man  would 
of  itself  overthrow  and  pulverize  my  proposition  that 
there  was  a  scientific  consensus  as  to  a  sequence  like 
that  of  Genesis  in  the  production  of  animal  hfo,  as 
between  fishes,  birds,  mamm'als,  and  man.     I  shaU 
compare  the  text  of  Genesis  with  geological  state- 
ments ;  but  shall  make  no  attempt,  unless  this  be  an 
attempt,  to  profit  by  a  consensus  of  geologists. 

I  suppose  it  to  be  admitted  on  all  bauds  that  no 
perfectly  comprehensive  and  complete  correspond- 
ence can  be  estabhshed  between  the  terms  of  the 
Mosaic  text  and  modern  discovery.  No  one,  for  in- 
stance, could  conclude  from  it  that  which  appears  to 
be  generaUy  recognized,  that  a  great  reptile-age 
would  be  revealed  by  the  mesozoic  rocks. 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 


85 


I 


Yet  I  think  readers  who  have  been  swept  away  by 
the  torrent  of  Mr.  Huxley^s  denunciations  will  feel 
some  surprise  when  on  di^awing  summarily  into  Hne 
the  main  allegations,  and  especially  this  ruling  order 
of  the  Proem,  they  see  how  small  a  part  of  them  is 
brought  into  question  by  Mr.  Huxley,  and  to  how 
large  an  extent  they  ai'e  favored  by  the  tendencies, 
presumptions,  and  even  conclusions  of  scientific  in- 
quiry. 

First,  as  to  the  cosmogony,  or  the  formation  of 
the  earth  and  the  heavenly  bodies — 

1.  The  first  operation  recorded  in  Genesis  appears 
to  be  the  formation  of  light.  It  is  detached,  appar- 
ently, from  the  waste  or  formless  elemental  mass 
(verses  2-5),  which  is  left  relatively  daik  by  its  with- 
drawal. 

2.  Next  we  hear  of  the  existence  of  vapor,  and  of 
it3  condensation  into  water  on  the  surface  of  the 
earth  (verses  6-10).  Vegetation  subsequently  begins  : 
but  this  belongs  rather  to  geology  than  to  cosmogony 
(verses  11,  12). 

3.  In  a  new  period,  the  heavenly  bodies  are  de- 
clared to  be  fully  formed  and  visible,  dividing  the 
day  from  night  (verses  14-18). 

Under  the  guidance  particularly  of  Dr.  Whewell,  I 
have  refeiTed  to  the  nebular  hypothesis  as  confirma- 
tory of  this  account. 

Mr.  Huxley  has  not  either  denied  the  hypothesis, 
or  argued  against  it.  But  I  turn  to  Phillips's  "  Man- 
ual of  Geology,"  edited  and  adapted  by  Mr.  Seeley 
and  Mr.  Etheridge  (1885).  It  has  a  section  in  vol.  i 
(pp.  15-19)  on  "  Modem  Speculations  Concerning 
the  Origin  of  the  Eaith." 

The  first  agent  here  noticed  as  contributing  to  the 


/^ 


86 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


PROEM  TO  GENESIS. 


87 


work  of  production  is  the  "  gas  hydrogen  in  a  burn- 
ing state,"  which  now  forms  the  enveloping  portion 
of  the  sun's  atmosphere ;  whence  we  ai'e  told  the  in- 
ference arises  that  the  earth  also  was  once  "  incan- 
descent at  its  surface,"  and  that  its  rocks  may  have 
been  "products  of  combustion."  Is  not  this  repre- 
sentation of  hght  with  heat  for  its  ally,  as  the  first 
element  in  this  speculation,  remaikably  accordant 
with  the  opening  of  the  Proem  to  Genesis? 

Next  it  appeal's  that  "  the  product  of  tliis  combus- 
tion is  vapor,"  which  with  diminished  heat  condenses 
into  water,    and    eventually  accumulates    "in    de- 
pressions on  the  sun's  surface  so  as  to  form  oceans 
and  seas."     "  It  is  at  least  probable  that  the  eaiih 
has  passed  through  a  phase  of  this  kind."     "The 
other  planets  are  apparently  more  or  less  hke  the 
earth  in  possessing  atmospheres  and  seas."     Is  there 
not  here  a  remarkable  concurrence  with  the  second 
great  act  of  the  cosmogony  ? 

Plainly  as  I  suppose  it  is  agreeable  to  these  sup- 
positions that,  as  vapor  gi'adually  passes  into  water, 
and  the  atmosphere  is  cleared,  the  full  adaptation  of 
sun  and  moon  by  visibility  for  their  functions  should 
come  in  due  sequence,  as  it  comes  in  Gen.  i,  14-18. 

Pursuing  its  subject,  the  "Manual"  proceeds 
(p.  17) :  "  This  consideration  leads  up  to  what  has 
been  called  the  nebular  hypothesis,"  which  "  supposes 
that,  before  the  stars  existed,  the  materials  of  which 
they  consist  were  diffused  in  the  heavens  in  a  state  of 
vapor."  The  text  then  proceeds  to  describe  how 
local-centers  of  condensation  might  throw  off  rings, 
these  rings  break  into  planets,  and  the  planets,  under 
conditions  of  sufficient  force,  repeat  the  process,  and 


thus  produce  sateUites  like  those  of  Saturn,  or  like 
the  moon. 

I  therefore  think  that,  so  far  as  cosmogony  is  con- 
cerned, the  effect  of  IVIr.  Huxley's  paper  is  not  by 
any  means  to  leave  it  as  it  was,  but  to  leave  it 
materially  fortified  by  the  "  Manual  of  Geology,"  which 
I  understand  to  be  a  standard  of  authority  at  the 
present  time. 

Turning  now  to  the  region  of  that  science,  I 
understand^  the  main  statements  of  Genesis,  in  suc- 
cessive order  of  time,  but  without  any  measurement 
of  its  divisions,  to  be  as  follows  : 

1.  A  period  of  land,  anterior  to  all  life  (verses  9, 
10). 

2.  A  period  of  vegetable  life,  anterior  to  animal 
life  (verses  11,  12.) 

3.  A  period  of  animal  life,  in  the  order  of  fishes 
(verse  20). 

4.  Another  stage  of  animal  life,  in  the  order  of 
birds. 

5.  Another,  in  the  order  of  beasts  (24,  25). 

6.  Last  of  all,  man  (verses  26,  27). 

Here  is  a  chain  of  six  links,  attached  to  a  previous 
chain  of  three.  And  I  think  it  not  a  httle  remarkable 
that  of  this  entire  succession,  the  only  step  directly 
challenged  is  that  of  numbers  four  and  five,  which 
Mr.  Huxley  is  inclined  rather  to  reverse.  He  admits 
distinctly  the  seniority  of  fishes.  How  came  that 
seniority  to  be  set  down  here  ?  He  admits  as  prob- 
able upon  present  knowledge,  in  the  person  of  Homo 
sapiens^  the  juniority  of  man.  How  came  this  junior- 
ity to  be  set  down  here?  He  proceeds  indeed  to 
describe  an  opposite  opinion  concerning  man  as  hold- 
ing exactly  the  same  rank  as  the  one  to  which  he  had 


88 


1*K0EM   TO   GEXESIS. 


PROEM   TO   aENESIS. 


given  an  apparent  sanction.     As  I  do  not  precisely 
understand  the  bearing  of  the  terms  he  uses,  I  pass 
them  by,  and  I  shall  take  the   Hberty  of  referring 
presently  to  the  latest  authorities,  which  he  has  him''- 
self  suggested  that  I  should  consult.     But  I  add  to 
the   questions  I  have  just   put    this  other  inquiry: 
How  came  the  Mosaic  writer  to  place  the  fishes  and 
the  men  in  their  true  relative  positions  not  only  to 
one  another,  and  not  only  to  the  rest  of  the  animal 
succession,  but  in  a  definite  and  that  a  true  relation 
of  tune  to  the  origin  of  the  first  plaut-Hfe,  and  to  the 
colossal  operations  by  which  the  earth  was  fitted  for 
them  aU  ?     Mr.  Huxley  knows  very  well  that  it  would 
be  in  the  highest  degree  irrational  to  ascribe  this 
correct  distribution  to  the  doctrine  of  chances ;  nor 
will  the  stone  of  Sisyphus  of  itself  constitute  a  suffi- 
cient answer  to  inquiries  which  are  founded,  not  upon 
a  fanciful  attempt  to  equate  every  word  of  the  Proem 
with  every  dictum  of  science,  but  upon  those  princi- 
ples of  probable  reasoning  by  which  aU  rational  hves 
are  and  must  be  guided. 

I  find  the  latest  pubHshed  authority  on  geology  in 
the  second  or  Mr.  Etheridge's  volume  of  the  "  Man- 
ual "  of  Professor  PhiUips,  and  by  this  I  will  now 
proceed  to  test  the  sixfold  series  which  I  have  vent- 
ured upon  presenting. 

First,  however,  looking  back  for  a  moment  to  a 
work,  obviously  of  the  highest  authority  (Paleontology, 
by  Richard  Owen  (now  Sir  Richard  Owen,  K.C  B  ) 
Second  edition,  p.  5,  1861),  on  the  geology  of  its  day, 
I  find  m  it  a  table  of  the  order  of  appearance  of 
animal  hf  e  upon  the  earth,  which,  beginning  with  the 
oldest,  gives  us — 


89 


1.  Invertebrates,  4.  Birds, 

2.  Fishes,  5.  Mammals, 

3.  Reptiles,  6.  Man. 

I  omit  all  reference  to  specifications,  and  speak 
only  of  the  principal  lines  of  division. 

In  the  Phillips-Etheridge  "  Manual,"  beginning  as 
before  with  the  oldest,  I  find  the  following  arrange- 
ment, given  partly  by  statement,  and  partly  by 
diagram. 

1.  "  The  Azoic  or  Archaean  time  of  Dana ;  "  called 
Pre-Cambrian  by  other  physicists  (pp.  3,  5). 

2.  A  commencement  of  plant  Hfe  indicated  by 
Dana  as  anterior  to  invertebrate  animal  Hfe  ;  long 
anterior  to  the  vertebrate  forms,  which  alone  are 
mentioned  in  Genesis  (pp.  4,  5). 

3.  Three  periods  of  invertebrate  life. 

4.  Age  of  fishes. 
6.  Age  of  reptiles. 

6.  Age  of  mammals,  much  less  remote. 

7.  Age  of  man,  much  less  remote  than  mammals. 
As  to  birds,  though  they  have  not  a  distinct  and 

separate  age  assigned  them,  the  "  Manual "  (vol.  i, 
ch.  XXV,  pp.  511-20)  suppUes  us  very  clearly  with 
their  place  in  "  the.  succession  of  animal  life."  We 
are  here  furnished  with  the  following  series,  after  the 
fishes.  1.  Fossil  reptiles  (p.  512);  2.  Ornithosauria 
(p.  517) ;  they  were  "  flying  animals,  which  combined 
the  characters  of  reptiles  with  those  of  birds;" 
3.  The  first  birds  of  the  secondary  rocks  with 
"feathers  in  all  respects  similar  to  those  of  existing 
birds  "  (p.  518) ;  4.  Mammals  (p.  520). 

I  have  been  permitted  to  see  in  proof  another 
statement  from  an  authority  still  more  recent,  Pro- 
fessor Prestwich,  which    is    now  passing   through 


90 


l>llOElrf   TO   GENESIS. 


the  press.     In  it  (pp.  80,  81)  I  find  the  foUowing 
seniority  assigned  to  the  orders  which  I  here  name : 

1.  Plants  (cryptogamous),        4.  Mammals, 

2.  Fishes,  5.  Man. 

3.  Birds, 

It  will  now,  I  hope,  be  observed  that,  according  to 
the  probable  intention  of  the  Mosaic  TVTiter,  these  five 
orders  enumerated  by  him  coiTespond  with  the  state 
of  geological  knowledge  presented  to  us  by  the  most 
recent  authorities  in  this  sense  ;    that  the  origins  of 
these  orders  respectively  have  the  same  succession  as 
is  assigned  in  Genesis  to  those  representatives  of  the 
orders,  which  alone  were  probably  known  to  the  ex- 
perience of  Adamic  man.     My  fourfold  succession 
thus  grows   into  a  fivefold  one.     By  placing  before 
the  first  plant-life  the  azoic  period,  it  becomes  sixfold. 
And  again,  by  placing  before  this  the  principal  stages 
of  the  cosmogony,  it  becomes,  according  as  they  are 
stated,  nine  or  ten  fold ;    every  portion  holding  the 
place  most  agreeable    to    modem  hypothesis    and 
modem  science  respectively. 

I  now  notice  the  points  in  which,  so  far  as  I  under- 
stand, the  text  of  the  Proem,  as  it  stands,  is  either 
mcomplete  or  at  variance  with  the  representations  of 
science. 

1.  It  does  not  notice  the  great  periods  of  inver- 
tebrate life  standing  between  (1)  and  (2)  of  my  last 
enumeration. 

2.  It  also  passes  by  the  great  age  of  reptiles,  with 
their  antecessors,  the  Amphibia,  which  come  between 
(2)  and  (3).  The  secondary  or  Mesozoic  period,  says 
the  "Manual"  (i,  511),  "has  often  been  termed  the 
age  of  reptiles." 

3.  It  mentions  plants  in  terms  which,  I  understand 


PROEM  TO  Genesis. 


di 


from  Professor  Huxley  and    otherwise,    correspond 
with  the  later,  not  the  earher,  forms  of  plant  life. 

4.  It  mentions  reptiles  in  the  same  category  with 
its  mammals. 

Now,  as  regards  the  first  two  heads,  these  omis- 
sions, enormous  with  reference  to  the  scientific 
record,  are  completely  in  harmony  with  the  probable 
aim  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  as  embracing  only  the 
formation  of  the  objects  and  creatures  with  which 
early  man  was  conversant.  The  introduction  of  these 
orders,  invisible  and  unknown,  would  have  been  not 
agreeable,  but  injurious,  to  his  purpose. 

As  respects  the  third,  it  will  strike  the  reader  of 
the  Proem  that  plant  life  (verses  11, 12)  is  mentioned 
with  a  particularity  which  is  not  found  in  the  accounts 
of  the  hving  orders  ;  nor  in  the  second  notice  of  the 
creation,  which  appears,  indeed,  pretty  distinctly  to 
refer  to  recent  plant-life  (Gen.  ii,  5,  8,  9).  Questions 
have  been  raised  as  to  the  translation  of  these  pas- 
sages, which  I  am  not  able  to  solve.  But  I  bear  in 
mind  the  difficulties  which  attend  both  oral  traditions 
and  the  conversation  of  ancient  MS.,  and  I  am  not  in 
any  way  troubled  by  the  discrepancy  before  us,  if  it 
be  a  discrepancy,  as  it  is  the  general  structure  and 
effect  of  the  Mosaic  statement  on  which  I  t^e  my 
stand. 

With  regard  to  reptiles,  while  I  should  also  hold 
by  my  last  remark,  the  case  is  different.  They  aj)- 
pear  to  be  mentioned  as  contemporary  with  mammals, 
whereas  they  are  of  prior  origin.  But  the  relative 
significance  of  the  several  orders  evidently  affected 
the  method  of  the  Mosaic  writer.  Agreeably  to  this 
idea,  insects  are  not  named  at  all.  So  reptiles  are  a 
family  fallen  from  greatness ;  instead  of  stamping  on 


92 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 


a  great  period   of  life  its    leading  character,  the. 
mere  y  skulked  upon  the  earth.  They  are  introduced 
aswill  appeal-  better  from  the  LXX  than  from  the 
A.V.  or  E.V.,  as  a  sort  of  appendage  to  mammals. 
Lymg  outside  both  the  use  and  the  dominion  of  man 
and  far  less  within  his  probable  notice,  they  are  not 
whoUy  omitted  like  insects,  but  treated  appLntly  L 
a  loose  manner  as  not  one  of  the  main  features  of  the 
pictures  which  the  writer  meaat  to  draw.     In  the 
Song  of  the  Three  Children,  where  the  foui- principal 
orders  are  recited  after  the  series  in  Genesis;  reptUes 
are  dropped  altogether,  which  suggests  either  that 
the  present  text  is  unsound,  or,  perhaps,  more  prob- 
ably,  that  they -were  deemed  a  secondary  and  insi<r. 
nificant  part  of  it.     But,  however  this  case  may  be 
regarded,  of  course  I  cannot  draw  from  it  any  sup- 
port  to  my  general  contention. 

I -distinguish,  then,  in  the  broadest  manner,  be- 
tween  Professor  Huxle/s  exposition  of  certain  fa^ts 
of  science  and  his  treatment  of  the  book  of  Genesis 
1  accept  the  first,  with  the  reference  due  to  a  greai 
teacher  from  the  meanest  of  his  hearers,  as  a  needed 
correction  to  myself,  and  a  valuable  instruction  for 
he  worid.     But,  subject  to  that  correction,  I  adhere 
to  my  proposition  respecting  the  fourfold  succession 
in  the  Proem ;   which  further  I  extend  to  a  fivefold 
succession  respecting  life,  and  to  the  great  stages  of 
the  cosmogony  to  boot.     The  five  origins,  or  firs( 
appearances  of  plants,  fishes,  birds,  mammals,  and 
man,  are  given  to  us  in  Genesis  in  the  order  of  sue- 
cession  in  which  they  are  also  given  by  the  latest 
geological  authorities. 

It  is,  therefore,  by  attaching  to  words  a  sense  thev 
were  never  meant  to  bear,  and  by  this  only,  that  Mr. 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 


93 


Huxley  establishes  the  parallels  (so  to  speak)  from 
which  he  works  his  heavy  artillery.  Land-population 
is  a  phrase  meant  by  me  to  describe  the  idea  of  the  Mo- 
saic writer,  which  I  conceive  to  be  that  of  the  animals 
familiarly  known  to  early  man.  But,  by  treating  this 
as  a  scientific  phrase,  it  is  made  to  include  extinct 
reptiles,  which  I  understand  Mr.  Huxley  to  treat  as 
being  land-animals ;  as,  by  taking  birds  of  a  very 
high  formation,  it  may  be  held  that  mammal  forms 
existed  before  such  birds  were  produced.  These  are 
artificial  contradictions,  set  up  by  altering  in  its 
essence  one  of  the  two  things  which  it  is  sought  to 
compare. 

If  I  am  asked  whether  I  contend  for  the  absolute 
accordance  of  the  Mosaic  writer,  as  interpreted  by 
me,  with  the  facts  and  presumptions  of  science,  as  I 
have  endeavored  to  extract  them  from  the  best 
authorities,  I  answer  that  I  have  not  endeavored  to 
show  either  that  any  accordance  has  been  demon- 
strated, or  that  more  than  a  substantial  accordance 

an  accordance  in  principal  relevant  particulars— is  to 
be  accepted  as  shown  by  probable  evidence. 

In  the  cosmogony  of  the  Proem,  which  stands  on  a 
distinct  footing  as  lying  wholly  beyond  the  experi- 
ence of  primitive  man,  I  am  not  aware  that  any  seri- 
ous flaw  is  alleged ;  but  the  nebular  hypothesis  with 
which  it  is  compared  appeal's  to  be,  perhaps  from  the 
necessity  of  the  case,  no  more  than  a  theory;  a  the- 
ory, however,  long  discussed,  much  favored,  and 
widely  axjcepted  in  the  scientific  world. 

In  the  geological  part,  we  are  liable  to  those  modi- 
fications or  displacements  of  testimony  which  the 
future  progress  of  the  science  may  produce.  In  this 
view  its  testimony  does  not  in  strictness  pass,  I  sup^ 


94 


PROEM   TO   GENESIS. 


pose  out  Of  the  category  of  probable  into  that  of  de- 
monstrative evidence.     Yet  it  can  hardly  be  supposed 
that  careful  researches,  and  reasonings  strictly  ad- 
justed to  method,  both  continued  through  some  gen- 
erations, have  not  in  a  large  measure  produced  what 
has  the  character  of  real  knowledge.     With  that  real 
Imowledge  the  reader  will  now  have  seen  how  far  I 
claim  for  the  Proem  of  Genesis,  fairly  tried,  to  be  in 
real  and  most  striking  accordance. 

And  this  brings  me  to  the  point  at  which  I  hare  to 
observe  that  Mr.  Huxley,  I  think,  has  not  mastered, 
and  probably  has  not  tried  to  master,  the  idea  of  his 
opponent  as  to  what  it  is  that  is  essentially  embraced 
m  the  idea  of  a  divine  revelation  to  man. 

So  fai-  as  I  am  awaie,  there  is  no  definition,  prop- 
erly so  caJled,  of  revelation  either  contained  in  script- 
ure or  established  by  the  general  and  permanent 
consent  of  Christians.     In  a  word  polemically  used 
of  mdetermmate  or  variable  sense.  Professor  Huxley 
has  no  title  to  impute  to  his  opponent,  without  in- 
quu-y  anything  more  than  it  must  of  necessity  convey 
JJut  he  seems   to  assume   that  revelation    is  to 
be   conceived   of    as   if  it   were   a    lawyer's   parch- 
ment, or  a  sum  in  arithmetic,  wherein  a  flaw  discov- 
ered at  a  particular  point  is  ipsofa^,to  fatal  to  the 
whole.     Very  little  refleccion  would  show  Professor 
Huxley  that  there  may  be  those  who  find  evidences 
of  the  communication  of  divine  knowledge  in  the 
Proem  to  Genesis  as  they  read  it  in  their  Bibles 
without  approaching  to  any  such  conception.     There 
IS  the  uncertainty  of  translation;  translators  are  not 
mspu-ed     There  is  the   difficulty  of   transcription: 
transcribers  are  not  inspired,  and  an  element  of  error 
18  mseparable  from  the  work  of  a  series  of  copyists 


PROEM   TO   GENESIS. 


95 


How  this  works  in  the  long  courses  of  time  we  see  in 
the  varying  texts  of  the  Old  Testament,  with  rival 
claims  not  easy  to  adjust.     Thus  the  authors  of  the 
recent  Revision  (Preface  to  the  Old  Testament,  p.  vi) 
have  had  to  choose  in  the  Massoretic  text  itself  be- 
tween different  readings,  and  "  in  exceptional  cases  " 
have    given  a  preference    to  the  ancient  versions. 
Thus,  upon  practical  grounds  quite  apart  from  the 
higher  questions  concerning  the  original  composition, 
we  seem  at  once  to  find  a  human  element  in  the  sa- 1 
cred  text.     That  there  is  a  fui'ther  and  larger  ques- 
tion, not  shut  out  from  the  view  even  of  the  most 
convinced  and  sincere  believers,  IVlr.  Huxley  may  per- 
ceive by  reading,  for  example,  Coleridge's  "  Confes- 
sions of  an  Inquiring  Spirit."     The  question  whether 
this  Proem  bears  witness  to  a  divine  communication, 
to  a  working  beyond  that  of  merely  human  faculties 
in  the  composition  of  the  scriptures,  is  essentially  one 
for  the  disciples  of  Bishop  Butler ;  a  question,  not  of 
demonstrative,  but  of  probable,  evidence.     I  am  not 
prepared  to  abandon,  but  rather  to  defend,  the  fol- 
lowing proposition :   It  is  perfectly  conceivable  that 
a  document  penned  by  the  human  hand,  and  trans- 
mitted by  human  means,  may  contain  matter,  ques- 
tionable, uncertain,  or  even  mistaken,  and  yet  may  by 
its  contents  as  a  whole  present  such   nioxEi^,  such 
moral  proofs  of  truth  divinely  imparted,  as  ought 
uTefragably/>ro  tanto  to  command  assent  and  govern 
practice.     A  man  may  possibly  admit  something  not 
reconciled,   and  yet  may  be  what   Mr.  Huxley  de- 
nounces as  a  Reconciler. 

I  do  not  suppose  it  would  be  feasible,  even  for 
Professor  Huxley,  taking  the  nebular  hypothesis  and 
geological  discovery  for  his  guides,  to  give,  in  the 


ajM-aaajseaaa-TT  jf,  ^m -aj,.^  ..mll..  ^  . 


96 


PROEM    TO    GENESIS. 


compass  of  the  first  twenty -seven  verses  of  Genesis 
an  account  of  the  cosmogony,  and  of  the  succession 
of  hfe  in  the  stratification  of  the  earth,  which  would 
combine  scientific  precision  of    statement  with  the 
majesty,  the  simphcity,  the  intelhgibility,  and   the 
impressiveness  of  the  record  before  us.     Let  us  mod- 
estly caU  it,  for  argument's  sake,  an  approximation  to 
the  present  presumptions  and  conclusions  of  science 
Let  me  assume  that  the  statement  in  the  text  as  to 
plants,  and  the  statement  of  verses  24,  25  as  to  rep- 
tiles, cannot  in  aU  points  be  sustained  j  and  yet  still 
there  remain  great  unshaJven   facts  to  be  weighed. 
First,  the  fact  that  such  a  record  should  have  been 
made  at   all.     Secondly,   the  fact  that,   instead   of 
dwelling  m  generalities,  it  has  placed  itself  under  the 
severe  conditions  of  a  chronological  order,  reaching 
from  the  first  nisus  of  chaotic  matter  to  the  consum""- 
mated  production  of  a  fair  and  goodly,  a  furnished 
and  a  peopled,  world.     Thirdly,  the  fact  that  its  cos- 
mogony seems,  in  the  light  of  the  nineteenth  century 
to  draw  more  and  more  of  countenance  from  the 
best  natural  philosophy ;  and  fourthly,  that  it  has 
described  the  successive  origins  of  the  five  gi-eat  cate- 
gories of  present  life,  with  which  human  experience 
was  and  is  conversant,  in  that  order  which  geological 
authority  confirms.     How  came  these  things  to  be  <? 
How  came  they  to  be,  not  among  Accadians,  or  As- 
syrians, or  Egyptians,  who  monopolized  the  stores  of 
human  knowledge  when  this  wonderful  tradition  was 
bom;  but  among  the  obscure  records  of  a  people 
who,  dwelling  in  Palestine  for  twelve  hundred  years 
from  their  sojourn  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  hardly 
had  force  to  stamp  even  so  much  as  their  name  upon 
the  history  of  the  worid  at  large,  and  only  then  begaa 


PBOEM    TO    GENESIS. 


97 


to  be  admitted  to  the  general  communion  of  mankind 
when  their  scriptures  assumed  the  dress  which  a 
gentHe  tongue  was  needed  to  supply  ?  It  is  more 
rational,  I  contend,  to  say  that  these  astonishing  an- 
ticipations were  a  God-given  supply,  than  to  suppose 
that  a  race,  who  fell  uniformly  and  entirely  short  of 
the  great  inteUectual  development*  of  aatiquity, 
should  here  not  only  have  equaled  and  outstripped  it,' 
but  have  entirely  transcended,  in  kind  even  more  thail 
in  degree,  all  known  exercise  of  human  faculties. 

Whether  this  was  knowledge  conveyed  to  the  mind 
of  the  Mosaic  author,  I  do  not  presume  to  determine. 
There  has  been,  in  the  behef  of  Christians,  a  profound 
providential  purpose,  Httie  or  variously  visible  to  us, 
which  presided  from  Genesis  to  the  Apocalypse,  over 
the  formation  of  the  marvelous  compound  which  we 
term  the  Holy  Scriptures.     This  we  wonderingly  em- 
brace without  being  much  perplexed  by  the  questions 
which  are  raised  on  them ;  for  instance,  by  the  ques- 
tion, in  what  exact  relation  the  books  of  the  Apoc- 
i-ypha,   sometimes    termed  deutero-canonical,  stand 
to  the  books  of  the  Hebrew  Canon.     Difficulties  of 
detail,  such  as  may  (or  ultimately  may  not)  be  found 
to  exist  in  the  Proem  to  Genesis,  have  much  the  same 
relation  to  the  evidence  of  revealed  knowledge  in  this 
record  as  the  spots  in  the  sun  to  his  all-unfolding 
and  sufficing  hght.    But  as  to  the  Mosaic  writer  him- 
self, all  I  presume  to  accept  is  the  fact  that  he  put 


*I  write  thus  bearing  fully  m  mind  the  unsurpassed  sub- 
limity of  mucli  that  is  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  consideration  of  this  subject  would  open  a  whoUy  new 
line  of  argument,  which  the  present  article  does  not  allow  me 
to  attempt. 


98 


PKOEM    TO    GENESIS. 


upon  undying  record,  in  this  portion  of  his  work,  a 
series  of  particulars  which,  intei-preted  in  the  grow- 
ing light  of  modem  knowledge,  requii-e  from  us.  on 
the  whole,  as  reasonable  men,  the  admission  that  we 
do  not  see  how  he  could  have  written  them,  and  that 
m  all  likehhood  he  did  not  write  them,  without  aid 
from  the  guidance  of  a  more  than  human  power.     It 
is  in  this  guidance,  and  not  necessarily  or  uniformly 
m  the  consciousness  of  the  writer,  that,  according  to 
my  poor  conception,  the  idea  of  revelation  mainly  Hes. 
And  now  one  word  on  the  subject  of  evolution      I 
cannot  foUow  IVIi-.  Huxley  in  his  minute  acquaintance 
with  Indian  sages,  aad  I  am  not  aware  that  evolution 
has  a  place  in  the  greater  number  of  the  schools  of 
Greek  philosophy.    Nor  can  I  comprehend  the  rapidity 
with  which  persons  of  authority  have  come  to  treat 
the  Banvinian  hypothesis  as  having  reached  the  final 
stage  of  demonstration.     To  the  eye  of  a  looker-on 
their  pace  and  method  seem  rather  too  much  like  a 
steeplechase.     But  this  may  very  weU  be  due  to  their 
want  of  appropriate  knowledge  and  habits  of  thought. 
For   myself,    in   my  loose  aad    uninformed  way  of 
looking  at  evolution,  I  feel  only  too  much  biased  in 
its  favor  by  what  I  conceive  to  be  its  relation  to  the 
great  argument  of  design.* 

Not  that  I  share  the  honor  with  which  some  men 
of  science  appear  to  contemplate  a  multitude  of  what 
they  term   "  sudden "  acts   of  creation.     AU  things 

*-  Views  like  these,  when  formulated  by  religious  instead 
of  scientific  thought,  make  more  of  divine  providence  and 
fore-ordmation  than  of  divine  intervention;  but  perhaps 
they  are  not  the  less  theistical  on  that  account."  From  the 
very  remarkable  lectures  of  Professor  Asa  Gray  on  -Natural 
bcicncc  and  Religion,"  p.  77.    Scribncr,  New  York   1880 


PBOEM    TO   GENESIS. 


99 


considered,  a  singular  expression:   but  one,  I  sup- 
pose, meaning  the  act  which  produces,  in  the  region 
of  nature,  something  not  related  by  an  unbroken  suc- 
cession of  measured  and  equable  stages  to  what  has 
gone  before  it.     But  what  has  equahty  or  brevity  of 
stage  to  do  with  the  question  how  far  the  act  is  crea- 
tive ?    I  fail  to  see,  or  indeed  am  somewhat  disposed 
to  deny,  that  the  short  stage  is  less  creative  than  the 
long,  the  single  than  the  manifold,  the  equable  than 
the  jointed  or  graduated  stage.     Evolution  is,  to  me, 
series  with  development.     And  like  series  in  mathe- 
matics,   whether    arithmetical     or    geometrical,    it 
estabHshes  in   things   an  unbroken  progression;   it 
places  each  thing  (if  only  it  stand  the  test  of  abihty 
to  Hve)  in  a  distinct  relation  to  every  other  thino- 
and  makes  each  a  witness  to  all  that  have  preceded 
it,  a  prophecy  of  all  that  are  to  follow  it.     It  gives 
to  the  argument  of  design,  now  called  teleological 
argument,  at  once  a  wdder  expansion,  and  an  aug- 
mented tenacity  and  soHdity  of  tissue.     But  I  must 
proceed. 

I  find  Mr.  Huxley  asserting  that  the  things  of 
science,  \sdth  which  •  he  is  so  splendidly  conversant, 
are  "  susceptible  of  clear  intellectual  comprehe4sion." 
Is  tliis  rhetoric,  or  is  it  a  formula  of  philosophy  ?  If 
the  latter,  will  it  bear  examination  ?  He  preeminently 
understands  the  relations  between  those  thino-s  which 
Nature  ofiers  to  his  view;  but  does  he  understand 
each  thing  in  itself,  or  ho2/)  the  last  term  but  one  in 
an  evolution  series  passes  into  and  becomes  the  last? 
The  seed  may  produce  the  tree,  the  tree  the  branch, 
the  branch  the  twig,  the  twig  the  leaf  or  flower ;  but 
can  we  imderstand  the  slightest  mutation  or  growth 
of  Nature  in  itself  ?    Can  we  tell  how  the  twig  passes 


100 


PBOEM    TO   0EHES18. 


into  leaf  or  flower,  one  jot  more  than  if  the  flower  or 
leal,  instead  of  coming  from  the  twig,  came  directly 
irom  the  tree  or  from  the  seed  ? 

I  cannot  but  trace  some  signs  of  haste  in  Professor 
Huxley's  assertion   that,   outside    the    province    of 
science,  we  have  only  imagination,  hope,  and  igno- 
rance.    Not,  as  we  shall  presently  see,  that  he  is  one 
of  those  who  rob  mankind  of  the  best  and  highest  of 
their  inheritance,  by  denying  the  reaUty  of  all  but 
material  objects.     But  the  statement  is  surely  open 
to  objection,  as  omitting,  or  seeming  to  omit,  from 
view  the  vast  fields   of  knowledge    only  probable, 
which  are  not  of  mere  hope,  nor  of  mere  imagination 
nor  of  mere    ignorance;    which  include  alike   the 
mww-dand  the  outward  life  of  man;  within  which 
he  the  real  mstruments  of  his  training,  and  where  he 
is  to  learn  how  to  think,  to  act,  to  be. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  notice  briefly  the  last  page 
of  Professor  Huxley's  paper,  in  which  he  drops  the 
scientist  and  becomes  simply  the  man.     I  read  it  with 
deep    interest,   and  with    no   smaJ]    sympathy.     In 
touchmg  upon  it,  I  shall  make  no  reference  (let  him 
forgive    me    the    expression)    to    his    "damnatory 
clauses     or  to  his  harmless  menace,  so  deftly  con 
veyed  through  the  prophet  Micah,  to  the  public  peace. 
The  exaltation  of  Kehgion  as  against  Theology  is 
at  the  present  day  not  only  so  fashionable,  but  usu- 
ally so  dommeering  and  contemptuous,  that  I  am 
fateful  to  Professor  Huxley  for  his  frank  statement 

!n,„iw  ^  ^^^  "'  *  ^"'^"^  °^  ''^'"'^'  '»«'•  ^o  I  in  the 
smallest  degree  quazrel  with  his  contention  that  Ee- 

L^on  and  Theology  ought  not  to  be  confounded. 
We  may  have  a  great  deal  of  Rehgion  with  very  little 
iiieology;  and  a  great  deal  of  Theology  with  very 


I»ROEM   TO   GENESIS. 


101 


*'''*'*'*WR'»3W»r~iW5!«>«i«s~ 


little  Keligion.  I  feel  sure  that  Professor  Huxley 
must  observe  with  pleasure  how  strongly  practical, 
ethical,  and  social  is  the  general  tenor  of  the  three 
synoptic  gospels;  and  how  the  appearance  in  the 
world  of  the  great  doctrinal  gospel  was  reserved  to  a 
later  stage,  as  if  to  meet  a  later  need,  when  men  had 
been  toned  anew  by  the  morahty  and,  above  all,  by 
the  life,  of  our  Lord. 

I  am  not,  therefore,  writing  against  him,  when  I 
remark  upon  the  habit  of  treating  Theology  with  an 
affectation  of  contempt.     It  is  nothing  better,  I  be- 
lieve, than  a  mere  fashion  ;  having  no  more  reference 
to  permanent  principle  than  the  mass  of  ephemeral 
fashions  that  come  from  Paris  have  with  the  immov- 
able types  of  beauty.    Those  who  take  for  the  bui'den 
of  their  song,  "  Kespect  KeHgion,  but  despise  Theol- 
ogy," seem  to  me  just  as  rational  as  if  a  person  were 
to  say,  "Admire  the  trees,  the  plants,  the  flowers, 
the  sun,  moon,  or  stars,  but  despise  botany,  and  de- 
spise astronomy."     Theology  is  ordered  knowledge; 
representing  in  the  region  of  the  intellect  what  rehg- 
ion  represents  in  the  heart  and  life  of  man.     And  this 
religion,    Mr.    Huxley   says   a  little  further   on,   is 
summed  up   in   the   terms   of    the   prophet    Micah 
(vi,  8) :  "  Do  justly,  and  love  mercy,  and  walk  hum- 
bly with  thy  God."     I   forbear  to  inquire  whether 
every  addition  to  this — such,   for   instance,    as   the 
Beatitudes — is  to  be  proscribed.     But  I  will  not  dis- 
pute that  in  these  words  'is  conveyed  the  true  ideal 
of  rehgious  discipHne  and  attainment.     They  really 
import  that  identification  of  the  will  which  is  set  out 
with  such  wonderful  force  in  the  very  simple  words 
of  the  "  Paradiso :" 

In  la  sua  volontade  h  nostra  pace, 


102 


PROEM   TO   GENESIS. 


and  wluch  no  one  has  more  beautifully  described  than 
(I  thxnk)  Charles  Lamb:  "  He  gave  his  heart  to  the 
Punfier,  h,s  will  to  the  Will  that  governs  the  uni- 
uerse.      It  may  be  we  shaU  find  that  Christianity 
Itself  ,s  m  some  sort  a  scaffolding,  and  that  the  fimJ 
building  as  a  pure  and  perfect  theism :  when  (1  Cor 
God"'«fl!  "^^^J^gdom  shall  be  deUvered  up  to 
t^od,       that  God  may  be  all  in  all."     Still,  I  cannot 
help  bemg  struck  with  an  impression  that  Mr.  Huxlev 
appears  to  cite  these  terms  of  Micah,  as  if  they  r^ 
duced  the  work  of  religion  from  a  difScult  to  a  very 
easy  performance.    But  look  at  them  again.    Examine 
them  well.     They  ai-e,  in  truth,  in  Cowper-s  words, 

Higlicr  than  the  hights  above, 

Deeper  than  the  depths  beneath. 

Bo  justly,  that  is  to  say,  extinguish  self;  love  mercy 
cut  uterly  away  all  the  pride  and  wrath,  and  aU  the 
cupidity,  that  make  this  fair  worid  a  wilderness  • 
walk  humbly  with  thy  God,  take  his  will  and  set  it  i^ 
the  place  where  thine  own  was  used  to  rule.  "  Rin.. 
out  the  old  ring  in  the  new."  Pluck  down  the  ty" 
rant  from  his  place;  set  up  the  true  Master  on  his 
lawful  throne. 

There  are  certainly  human  beings,  of  happy  com- 
position who  mount  these  aiiy  hights  with  elastic 
Step  and  with  unabated  breath. 

Sponta  sua,  sine  lege,  fidem  rectumque  colebat. 

—  Omd,  Metam.  t,  90. 
This  comparative  refinement  of  nature  in  some  may 
ev^n  lead  them  to  undervalue  the  stores  of  that  rich 
armory  which  Chnstianity  has  provided  to  equip  us 
for  our  great  life-battle.  The  text  of  the  prophet 
Micah,  developed  mto  aU  the  breadth  of  St.  Paul  and 


PROEM   TO   GENESIS. 


103 


St.  Augustine,  is  not  too  much — ^is  it  not  often  all  too 
little? — for  the  needs  of  ordinary  men. 

I  must  now  turn,  by  way  of  epilogue,  to  Professor 
Max  Mailer;  and  I  hope  to  show  him  that  on  the 
questions  which  he  raises  we  are  not  very  far  apart. 
One  grievous  wrong,  indeed,  he  does  me  in  (appar- 
ently) ascribing  to  me  the  execrable  word  "  theanthro- 
morphic,"  of  which  I  wholly  disclaim  the  paternity, 
and  deny  the  use.  Then  he  says,  I  warn  him  not  to 
trust  too  much  to  etymology.  Not  so.  But  only  not 
to  trust  to  it  for  the  wrong  purj)ose,  in  the  wrong 
place ;  just  as  I  should  not  preach  on  the  virtue  and 
value  of  Hberty  to  a  man  requiring  handcuffs.  I  hap- 
pen to  bear  a  name  known,  in  its  genuine  form,  to 
mean  stones  or  rocks  frequented  by  the  gled;  and 
probably  taken  from  the  habitat  of  its  first  bearer. 
Now,  if  any  human  being  should  ever  hereafter  make 
any  inquiry  about  me,  trace  my  name  to  its  origin, 
and  therefore  describe  the  situation  of  my  dwelling, 
he  would  not  use  etymology  too  much  but  would  use 
it  ill.  What  I  protest  against  is  a  practice,  not  with- 
out example,  of  taking  the  etymology  of  mythologic 
names  in  Homer,  and  thereupon  supposing  that  in  all 
cases  we  have  thus  obtained  a  guide  to  their  Homeric 
sense.  The  place  of  Nereus  in  the  mind  of  the  poet 
is  indisputable;  and  here  etymology  helps  us.  But 
when  a  light-etymology  is  fotmd  for  Hera,  and  it  is 
therefore  asserted  that  in  Homer  she  is  a  light-god- 
dess, or  when,  because  no  one  denies  that  Phoihos  is 
a  light-name,  therefore  the  Apollo  of  Homer  was  the 
Sun,  then  indeed,  not  etymology,  but  the  misuse  of 
etymology,  hinders  and  misleads  us.  In  a  ques- 
tion of  etymology,  however,  I  shall  no  more  meas- 


wawimmi 


iiiiiiuniinwin 


WWMiiiiilliiillllilMgBiQjIlljllll 


104 


1*K0EM  TO  GENESIS. 


m-e  swords  with  Mr.  Max  Mailer   than  with    Mr 

,  sunple  reason  that  mj  sword  is  but  a  lath.     I  there 

ore  surrender  to  the  mercy  of  this  great  philoSS 

the  dentation  of  aine  and  diner  from  rf^;W 

wkch  may  have  been  suggested  by  the  use  ofTeTord 

<i^ne  m  our  Bible  (as  John  xxi,  12)  for  breakTastTn' 

a  sense  expressed  by  La  Bruyere   xi)  in  t  Word's' 

But,  Mr.  Max  Mailer  says,  I  have  offended  a;,ainst 

mortal  sm  ?  By  attackmg  solarism.  But  what  havA 
I  attacked,  and  what  has  he  defended^  I  ha" 
at  acted  nothing  but  the  exclusive  use  of  the  sol 

^'^ati:tT  ^^"''^'"^  °^  the  Aryan  r^t 
seek'to  at  V  t.  monopoh^ing  pretension  that  I 

thlt'lf^V  tr"""  °^  «°'«rism,  while  admitting 
that     the  solar  theory  has  a  most  importaiit  place" 

"^v  cl^oT    T'^'"^-     ^"'  ""^  "'-^  «--'  -horn  I 
solansm  I  denounce  is  not  his  solarism  at  all  •  and 
he  only  seeks  to  prove    that  "  certain  portions   of 
ancxent  mythology  have  a  directly  solar  or^^^  So 

iS:tTL':JfT,  That  is.  lUlTsl' 

throughourthtXltrid  ^    '"   '"'^'^  ^'-""^ 

It  18  only  when  a  yoke  is  put  upon  Homer's  nert 

:XfrwrcrHZe:^:sr " ,  -f -S 

-velous  and  spleX  l^r  P^t'  Z 
guidance  of  ethnological  affinities  and  memorie'lt  t 


PROEM   TO   GENESIS. 


105 


corporates  in  itself  the  most  diversified  traditions, 
and  binds  them  into  a  unity  by  the  plastic  power  of 
an  unsurpassed  creative  imagination.  Its  dominating 
spirit  is  intensely  human.  It  is  therefore  of  necessity 
thoroughly  anti-elemental.  Yet,  when  the  stones  of 
this  magnificent  fabric  are  singly  eyed  by  the  ob- 
server, they  bear  obvious  marks  of  having  been 
appropriated  from  elsewhere  by  the  sovereign  pre- 
rogative of  genius ;  of  having  had  an  anterior  place 
in  other  systems  ;  of  having  belonged  to  nature- wor- 
ship, and  in  some  cases  to  sun-worship ;  of  having  been 
drawn  from  many  quarters,  and  among  them  from 
those  which  Mr.  Max  Mtiller  excludes  :  from  Egypt, 
and  either  from  Palestine^  or  from  the  same  tradi- 
tional source  to  which  Palestine  itself  was  indebted. 
But  this  is  not  the  present  question.  As  to  the  solar 
theory,  I  hope  I  have  shown  either  that  our  positions 
are  now  identical,  or  that,  if  there  be  a  rift  between 
them,  it  is  so  narrow  that  we  may  conveniently  shake 
hands  across  it. 

W.  E.  Gladstone. 


Postscript. — I  learn  with  satisfaction  that  in 
America,  where  the  stores  of  geological  knowledge 
have  been  so  greatly  enlarged,  the  business  of  the 
Keconciler  has  been  taken  into  the  hands  of  scient- 
ists :  Dr.  Dana,  Professor  of  Geology  in  Yale  Col- 
lege, and  Dr.  Arnold  Guyot,  Professor  of  Geology 
and  Physical  Geograj^hy  in  New  Jersey  College. 
Both  of  these  authorities,  it  appears,  have  adhered 
through  a  long  career,  and  now  adhere  with  increased 
confidence,  to  the  idea  of  a  substantial  harmony  be- 
tween science  and  the  Mosaic  text.  Professor  Dana's 
latest  tract  has  recently  appeared  in  the  Bihliotheca 


I 


106 


PEOEM   TO   GENESIS. 


pian  mammals  (p  214V  hnf  of,  /  marsu- 

early  p,ant-life  ^n  !"  W  peZ  ^  sTsf  "".^ 
was  With  P.ofessor  Guyot/thrti:  IJ  Tl' 
mog-omcal,  portion  of  the  l>roPm  r.^f       i 

It  IS  a  rehef  to  find  that  the  burdp„  Jti. 
ment  is  shared  with  witnesses  Iho  at  eoi^IS 

yojecuon .      J  kis  people,  which  knmo-th  nnt  th.  j 
IS  accursed"  (St.  John  vii  49)  '  '^*  '"'"' 

IegrhoS';r!rT  °^  ^'^'-"tolo^-y  in  Yale  Col- 
iege,   Holds   (Ormthodontes,    1880    n    1^7^    „     *%, 

grounds  of  the  wide  differences  Ww       !f^'  *^* 

*-y.  and  the  other  ^ZT:,'':^^^,''^^^^ 

::~  -r-  -s  ren^ote,  and^prirw 

C6«5^ow,     The  latfpr  irr^r^i,-  ^"^ priority  for  5z/c- 

Which  is  not  foin^LStUr  -S  ^T^' 
Wen  b,  the  absence  of  reference Tl^ ert^ 
brates  of  .he  paleozoic,  and  the  reptiles  Tu.« 
mesozoio  rocks.  "utues  ol    the 

W.  E.  G. 


■'--i^**aWWj^««»«*^!^»«f^-' 


'"s^sj^awiBiftiKiT:::":'''',.  ■^- 


'^-DJTTiV^     Oii^     CREATION''— AN     ANSWER      TO 

MR.     GLADSTONE. 

BY   ALBERT    REVILLE,    D.D. 

I  had  been  already  a  month  in  Italy,  and  expected 
to  remain  at  least  another  there,  and  I  was  so  absorbed 
in  my  journey,  which  was  partly  for  pleasure,  partly 
for  instruction,  through  that  beautiful  country,  that 
I  gave  absolutely  no  thought  to  poHtics  or  theology, 
except  to  the  veiy  special  subject  which  had  drawn 
me  to  Ravenna  and  Rome.     Had  there  been  elections 
in  France  which  might  have  thrown  my  country  into 
Parhamentary  confusion  ?     Were  other  elections  im- 
pending in  England  menacing  a  people  to  whom  I 
am  much  attached,  with  a  similar  fate  ?    Did  the  Bul- 
garian   question    threaten  Europe  with   a  terrible 
storm  ?    I  confess,  to  my  shame,  that  all  these  ques- 
tions had  become  as  foreign  to  my  thoughts  as  the 
conflicts  of  Peru  and  Chili,  or  the  question  of   the 
prolongation  of  the  mandates  of  the  Hungarian  dep- 
uties.    I  hved  wholly  in  pagan  and  Christian  antiq- 
uity.    My  time  also  was  limited  and  barely  sufficient 
for  the  task  I  had  undertaken.      I  only  remember 
that  one  day  at  table  cVhote  I  took  somewhat  warmly 
the  side  of  Mr.  Gladstone— as  far  as  it  was  proper 
for  a  stranger  discussing  the  affairs  of  a  country  not 
his  own  to  do  so— against  an  oldEngHsh  lady  who  was 
vehemently  denouncmg  the  patriarch  of  Enghsh  Lib- 
eralism.    For  with  all  due  reserve  on  the  points  on 
which  the  Enghsh  aJone  are  competent  to  speak.  Mr. 


imiiminn! 


MMMnM 


mm 


108 


ANSWER   TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 


Gladstone  is,  to  us  who  hold  ourselves  Contiuental 
Liberals,  one  of  the  Tories  one  of  fl,.  "oimenta^ 
forces  of  P.,,^  b'"nes,  one  ot  the  great  moral 

lorces  of  European  LiberaUsm.  I  am  bound  how- 
ever, to  add  that  my  defense  of  him  waTentoel 
restricted  to  the  field  of  politics  ^ 

There  seemed,  therefore,  a  certain  irony  of  fate  to 

etsoTe  a?.  ^'^^  """  "'^"'  '  '^  ^^  «« 
episode,  at  the  same  table  d'h6te,  an  Italian  count 

who,  unhke  myself,  was  hving  wholly  i„  the  contem 

pora,7  world,  suddenly  said  to  me,  "You  aie  M  eI" 

^rler  ^"xe^^^^T    ''    ''l  ^""^^^^ « 
JLes.  WeU,  it  seems  that  Mr  Glad 

review.  Impossible !"    I  exclaimed.      "Yes    the 

Mahe  (an  Itahan  newspaper  published  in  French) 
says  so,  and  I  bring  you  the  number  "  ^ 

tiontd'f "/  ^''"^'^'  "'  ""  ffreatincrease  of  atten- 
oX  Teen  7  7."'  ""^  '^°'^''  ""'^'^^  ^  ^^  ^^tterto 
heard,  that  they  were  saying  behind  me,   «  That  is 

anirg2:rreS:"'th^rr  ^^^  ^-^^ 

The  hofri  1  ■     /  ^^  ''®''°"'«  a  personage. 

entL  1 ,  r^''  "^^  '^'  ""*^'«  *'«'=-"«  -ore  deffr- 
ential,  and  I  soon  saw  that  it  was  beyond  all  doubt 

GladsTor"^'"^'^^-^^-'>^-"-^edbyr 

r  ptSd'rh^^aty^-^thr '  '  '"^ 

wMch  had  been  ^^oj^^ ZTn  Jlt^^V^ 

;e...andV-nrurt:;;^^^^^^^ 

erl    T""'''  ""'"""-'■     ^'  ^-  -  -'^tter  oT  Mif 
ference  to  me  to  know  that  I  had  been  censured  by 


ANSWER    TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 


109 


the  ex-premier  of  the  United  Kingdom,  for  whose 
character  and  superior  talents  I  had  long  felt  a  sin- 
cere admiration.  But  a(;e  quad  agis.  I  had  come 
to  Italy  for  a  special  object.  I  could  not  deviate 
from  it  even  for  an  empire,  and  when  the  first  mo- 
ment of  surprise  and  emotion  was  over  I  said  to  my- 
self, Hke  a  merchant  on  his  hohday,  "Business 
to-morrow !     We  will  see  to  this  in  Paris." 

At  last,  thanks  to  the  obliging  intervention  of  some 
friends  in  England,  and  especially  to  the  kind  editor 
of  the  Nineteenth  Century,  I  am  in  a  position  not 
only  to  make  myself  acquainted  with  the  article  about 
myself,  but  also  to  submit  to  the  EngUsh  public,  and, 
with  every  respect,  to  JVIi'.  Gladstone  himself,  some 
reflections  on  the  points  on  which,  in  language  at 
once  indulgent  and  severe,  he  has  done  me  the  honor 
of  attacking  me. 

These  remarks  will  serve  to  explain  why  I  am  so 
late  in  replying  to  the  objections  of  my  illustrious 
assailant.     The  delay,  however,  has  had  this  advan- 
tage, that  I  have  found  my  work  half  done,  and  by 
abler  hands  than  mine.     M.  Max  Mailer,  in  an  article 
entitled,  "  Solar  Myths,"  has  defended  with  his  usual 
talent  the  theory  which  gives  a  naturalistic  interpre- 
tation to  the  greater  part  of  the  myths  that  have  come 
down  to  us  from  antiquity,  or  that  can  be  even  now 
collected    in  uncivilized  nations.     Mr.  Huxley  has 
demonstrated,  with  his  accustomed  vigor  and  with 
his    indisputable  competence,   that  Mr.    Gladstone 
labors  under  illusions  about  the  harmony  which  he 
supposes  himself  to  have  estabhshed  between  the  Bib- 
Heal  account  of  the  creation  and  the  conclusions  of 
modern  science.     I  can  only  express  to  these  two  em- 
inent men  my  gratitude  for  their  good  opinion  of  my 


8a»iimawi;ii'»»i ;  ummm. 


mmmm 


110 


ANBWEB   TO   MB.    GLADSTONE. 


humble  person,  and  assure  Mr.  Huxley  in  particular 
that,  so  far  from  resenting  it,  I  am  happy  and  proud 
that  a  man  of  his  caliber  should  have  so  warmly  taken 
my  part,  or,  to  speak  more  accurately,  should  have 
taken  my  writings  as  an  occasion  for  defending  what 
for  him  as  for  me  is  the  cause  of  scientific  truth. 

I  now  come  to  the  points  of  dispute.     Mr  Glad- 
stone, with  a  courtesy  for  which  I  must  thank  him 
accuses  my  "Prolegomena"  of  being  rather  Epile^ 
gomena,  because,  as  he  says,  I  have  in  the  first  place 
without   any  preliminary  demonstration,  eliminated 
from  the  field  of  the  scientific  history  of  religions  aU 
theories  which  stait  from  the  supposition  of  a  super- 
natural revelation  granted  to  primitive  humanity.     I 
have  put,  he  maintains,  in  the  "preface  "  of  the  "His 
tory  of  Religions"  what  ought  logically  only  to  come 
at  the  end,  if  it  comes  at  all. 

I  will  ventuie  respectfully  to  observe  that  prefaces 
are  usually  composed  by  authors  when  then-  books 
are  completed,  and  that  they  contain  directly  or  indi- 
rectly  their  conclusions;   at   all   events   they  fore- 
shadow them.     I  did  not  begin  a  history  of  religions 
without  having  studied  the  subject  as  a  whole.  More- 
over the  natural  end  of  Prolegomena  is  to  expound 
and  if  necessaiy  to  demonstrate,  the  method  which  it 
IS  proposed  to  follow  in  the  works  to  which  they  are 
prefixed.     Mr.  Gladstone  is  too  clear-sighted  not  to 
understand  at  once  that  it  makes  an  essential  differ- 
ence m  the  manner  in  which  the  history  of  reU-ions 
must  be  treated  whether  the  writer  starts  from  the 
Idea  of  a  primitive  revelaUon  made  to  the  human  race 
or  whether  he  rejects  this  hypothesis  as  unproved  or 
anti-scientific.     In  the  first  case,  this  history  is  the 
history  of  a  prolonged  decadence.     In  the  second  it 


ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 


Ill 


is  the  history  of  a  progressive  evolution.  I  was  there- 
fore forced,  by  the  very  nature  of  things,  to  state 
which  side  I  took  on  this  grave  question,  since  all 
that  foUowed  depended  upon  it.  If  IVIi-.  Gladstone 
himself  undertook  a  general  history  of  rehgion,  I 
would  defy  him  to  escape  from  this  necessity. 

My  honored  critic  in  the  next  place  complains  that 
I  have  chosen  him,  rather  than  many  others,  as  the 
representative  of  the  point  of  view  favorable  to  the 
idea  of  a  primitive  revelation  founded  on  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Bible,  whereas  I  ought  rather  to  have 
referred  to  specialists,  such  as  Dr.  Keusch,  who  have 
developed  this  theory  ex  pro/esso.     Mr.  Gladstone 
acknowledges  that  he  would  not  now  formulate  his 
views  as   "  crudely "  as  formerly  on  this  question, 
which  seemed  then  more  simple  than  in  these  later 
times;  that  to  presuppose  the  supernatural  in  such 
matters   is    to   deviate    from   the  law  of    scientific 
method ;  that  he  was  especially  absorbed  with  the 
luxuriant  beauties  of  the  Homeric  poetry,  and  that 
he  only  entered  indirectly  into  the  theological  heal- 
ings of  his  researches.     He  maintains  only  that  there 
are  evident  traces  inthe  poems  of  Homer  of  a  histor- 
ical connection  with  the  traditions  of  the  Hebrews, 
and  especially  with  the  book  of  Genesis.     As  for  the 
precise  form  in  which  he  expressed  his  views  on  this 
question,  he  insists  on  it  so  little  that  he  has  not 
wished  to  repubhsh  the  book  which  contains  them, 
and  it  has  now  become  very  rare.     In  fine,  he  refuses 
to  admit  the  too  dogmatic  form  given  by  me  to  that 
primitive  orthodoxy  which  was  revealed  to  the  first 
man.     It  consisted  at  most  "of  rudimentary  indica- 
tions of  what  are  now  developed  and   established 
truths." 


112 


ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 


I  can  only  bow  before  these  attenuations,  intro- 
duced bj  the  author  himseK  into  a  theory  which  had 
appeared  to  me,  and  to  others  also,  to  have  assumed 
a  much  more  definite  and  angular  fonn.     If  I  se- 
lected 'Mr.  Gladstone  rather  than  others  as  the  repre- 
sentative of  a  point  of  view  which  is  not  mine,  I  did 
so  on  account  of  his  eminence.     His  name  has  often 
been  put  forward  in  support  of  the  theory  which  I 
considered  myself  obliged  to  attack.     Being  called 
upon  by  the  position  I  hold  to  endeavor  to  make  the 
educated  public  of  my  coimtry  familiar  with  an  order 
of  studies  and  controversies  as  yet  very  Httle  culti- 
vated in  France,  it  was  my  duty  to  consider  carefully 
the  antagonists  who  might  be  opposed  to  me.     The 
name  of  Dr.  Eeusch  would  have  conveyed  nothing  to 
my  audience  or  to  my  readers.     The  name  of  IVIr. 
Gladstone  shone  with  a  very  different  splendor.     I 
did  not  know,  and  was  not  bound  to  know — especially 
when  I  saw  so  eminent  an  Englishman  as  Sir  G.  Cox 
forming  the  same  estimate  as  myself  of  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's views — that  IVIr.  Gladstone  had  somewhat  re- 
ceded from  the  "  crudity  "  of  his  early  affirmations. 
I  note  with  great  satisfaction  his  corrections.     I  see 
in  them  a  sign  that  his  views  ai*e  not  as  far  as  they 
were  from  mine,  and  I  shall  certainly  mention  in  a 
new  edition  the  limitations  which  Mr.  Gladstone  has 
himself  thought  fit  to  place  upon  his  earlier  ideas 
about  the  religious  origins  of  humanity. 

My  illustrious  adversaiy  next  passes  from  the  de- 
fensive to  the  offensive,  and  reproaches  me  first  of  all 
for  my  manner  of  looking  on  the  book  of  Genesis, 
and  in  the  second  place  for  my  errors  about  the 
mythology  of  Homer. 

On  the  second  point  I  must  decline  at  present  to 


ANSWER   TO   MR.    GLADSTONE.  113 

enter  into  a  prolonged  controversy.     Time,  and,  to  a 

ZTm  T  '  ,T"^''  '"^'  ""     ^^  S^-^--  litera- 
ture Mr    G.adstone  is  a  speciaHst  who  might  weU 

mtmndate  gi^eater  scholars  thaii  myself.     This  does 
not,  however,  prevent  me  from  thinking  that  when 
he  sees  a  historical  relation  between  the  accounts  in 
.    Genesis  and  the  traditions  embalmed  in  the  Homeric 
poems  he  is  looking  through  deceptive  glasses  which 
unconsciously  impair  the  clearness  of  his  si<.ht     In 
our  age  he  is  about  the  only  eminent  scholar  who  ha^ 
perceived   this   family  resemblance.     This  is  not  a 
reason  for  asserting  that  it  does  not  exist,  but  it  is  a 
reason  for  aistrusting  it,  and  I  own  that,  for  my  part, 
I  find  It  nnpossible  to  establish  it.     Pui^ely  external 
coincidences,  analogies   of  detail,  prove  nothing  in 
such  a  matter.     The  general  history  of  religious  be- 
liefs and  practices  shows  that  very  curious  ideas  and 
customs,  entirely  unconnected  with  those  that  now 
occupy  us,  have  existed  among  very  different  and  very 
distant  nations,  although  it  is  not  possible  reasonably 
to  suppose  that  they  were  communicated.     In  such 
ca^es  It  is  necessaiy  simply  to  investigate  the  psycho- 
logical pomt  of  depaiiui  e  of  these  ideas  and  customs, 
and  if  this  can  be  discovered,  the  conclusion  must  be 
di-awn  that  the  essential  unity  of  the  human  mind 
causes  it  often,  when  starting  from  the  same  institu- 
tion or  principle,  to  aiTive  in  many  different  regions 
at  consequences,  appHcations,  and  analogies  of  belief 
which  are  truly  astonishing  both  from  their  stran<re- 
ness  and  from  their  resemblances.     The  Incas  who 
ruled   over  ancient  Peru  had   certainly  never  read 
Machiavel,  but  those  who  study  their  history  must 
admne  the  consummate  art  with  which  they  knew  how 
.0  govem  their  va^t  empire,  regulating  theii-  conduct 


■mWBIlHWHI 


114 


ANSWER  TO  MR,  GLADSTONE. 


ANSWER  TO  MR.  GLADSTONE. 


115 


by  maxims  which  might  seem  borrowed  from  the 
great  Florentine  theorist.  I  must  suspect  that  what 
Mr.  Gladstone  has  taken  for  signs  of  a  "historical 
relationship  "  between  the  Homeric  poems  and  Gen- 
esis are  merely  superficial  analogies,  explained  by  the 
very  nature  of  the  human  mind  w^hen  brought  face  to 
face  with  the  same  problems,  and  implying  none  of 
those  consequences  which  the  eminent  statesman 
wishes  to  draw  from  them. 

I  shall  push  my  boldness  one  step  further.  Mr. 
Gladstone  acknowledges  himself,  with  the  most 
engaging  modesty,  that  **  of  any  other  system  than 
the  Olympian  it  would  be  presumption  in  him  to 
speak,  as  he  has,  beyond  this  limit,  none  but  the  most 
vague  iand  superficial  knowledge."  Let  me  regret 
deeply  this  gap  in  the  learning  of  so  distinguished  a 
Hellenist.  If  there  be  any  department  of  knowledge 
in  which  a  compaiison  of  analogies  and  correspond- 
ences is  especially  instructive,  it  is  undoubtedly  the 
history  of  reUgions.  Each  pait  of  it  throws  Hght 
upon  the  others,  and  all  who  have  devoted  themselves 
to  it  will,  I  am  sure,  agree  with  me,  that  at  every 
step  some  problem  arises  which  appears  inexplicable 
as  long  as  we  look  at  it  only  in  one  local  rehgion,  but 
finds  an  easy  and  immediate  solution  by  reference  to 
some  other  rehgion.  M.  Max  Mtiller  and  the  "  In- 
dianists  "  of  his  school  have  suppHed  us  by  this  com- 
parative method  with  very  plausible  explanations  of 
many  exceedingly  obscure  points  in  Greek  mythology 
which  could  never  have  been  elucidated  if  we  had 
confined  ourselves  to  Greece  alone.  Who  could  have 
otherwise  arrived  at  the  explanation  of  the  love  of 
Apollo  for  Daphne,  and  of  the  transformation  of  the 
young  nymph  into  a  laurel  t     By  what  other  way 


could  we  have  traced  to  its  origin  the  story  of  Pro- 
metheus ?  And  to  what  error,  to  what  impotence,  are 
not  those  now  condemned  who  attempt  to  explain 
the  OlympiaQ  mythology  by  itself  aJone,  without  ever 
comparing  it  with  the  mythologies  that  aie  its 
sisters  ? 

Let  me  add,  however,  that,  while  speaking  in  this 
way,  I  am  one  of  those  who  are  inclined  to  think  that 
in  these  later  years  some  injustice'  has  been  done  to 
the  Greek  mythology  and  to  its  originahty  by  resolv- 
ing it,  so  to  speak,  into  a  multitude  of  extraneous 
elements  coming  from  all  quarters.     I  may  perhaps 
give  some  small  pleasure  to  Mr.  Gladstone  by  in- 
forming him  that  I  on  the  whole  share  his  view  about 
Heracles,  whom  I  do  not  at  all  identify  with  the  Phoe- 
nician Melkart.     Both,  I  am  persuaded,  are   solar 
divinities.     The  myths  concerning  Melkart,  or  forged 
in  honor  of    that    itinerant   divinity,   have   largely 
entered  into    the    developed    legend    of    Heracles. 
Nevertheless,  I  think  with  Buttman,  Otfried  Mttller, 
and  Schmidt,  that  Heracles  is  primitively  a  concep- 
tion purely  and  authentically  Greek.     Not  only  ai'e 
the  characters  of  the  two  divinities  very  different,  it 
is  also  inadmissible  that  an  exotic  god  should  have 
held  so  considerable  a  place  in  the  history  of  primi- 
tive Greece. 

I  acknowledge  moreover  that  the  place  and  the 
part  assigned  to  Heracles  in  the  Homeric  poems  have 
something  in  them  difficult  to  explain.  He  is  far 
from  being  represented  there  as  a  hero  without 
reproach.  He  appears  to  be  rather  imposed  on  the 
poet  by  a  commanding  tradition  than  hked  by  him. 
I  will  add— what  perhaps  Mr.  Gladstone  will  think 
very  rash— that  being  but  httle  convinced  of  the 


■MiHMll 


116 


ANSWER    TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 


unity  of  the  Homeric  poems,  I  regard  as  a  not  very 
skilful  interpolation  of  a  harmonist  the  passage  of  the 
Odyssey,  xi,  601-604,  where  the  received  text  dis- 
tinguishes  the  Heracles   admitted  into   the   divine 
abode  from  the  Heracles   whom  Ulysses  perceives 
among  the  mournful  shades  that  inhabit  the  kingdom 
of  Hades.     I  have  myself  a  little  explanation  of  this 
apparent  anomaly,  but  I  hardly  venture  to  propose  it 
to  the  learned  commentator  of  Homer.     I  think  that 
Heracles  was  long  a  popular  divinity  in  the  lower 
ranks  of  the  Greek  population,  still  more  legendary 
and  especially  less  refined  than  his  rival,  the  beautiful 
Phoebus  Apollo,  even  though  both  may  have  spnmg 
from  the  same  root.     But  Phoebus  Apollo  was  the 
sun-god  prefeiTed  by  the  upper  classes,  by  the  nobles, 
the  princes,  and  the  kings.     He  was  the  aristocratic 
sun,  and  the  poetry  of  the  aedes,  a  poetry  in  some 
sort  feudal,  was  from  the  beginning  more  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  poet-and-musician-god,  the  sun-god  of 
the  upper  classes,  than  with  the  Gargantua  of  the 
populace.     Hence  the  depreciation  of  the  latter  and 
the  kind  of  satisfaction  with  which  his  brutality,  his 
arrogance,   even  his    impiety  and    his    crimes,  are 
recounted.     At  a  later  period   the  popular  legend 
obliged  every  one  to  respect  its  favorite  hero,  and, 
without  effacing  all  his  faults,  impressed  upon  him 
definitively  in  the  mythology  the  characters  of  the 
pacificator,  the  liberator,   and   the   "Good   Giant," 
which  Mr.  Gladstone,  imprisoned  in  his  "  Homer," 
accuses    me    with    some    irony    of    having    lightly 
attributed  to  a  god  who  by  no  means  deserved  them. 
I  do  not  know  whether  this  explanation,  which  I 
could  develop  and  support  with  some  proofs,  will  find 


ANSWER    TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 


117 


any  favor  with  my  censor,  and  I  merely  submit  it  to 
him  with  deference. 

Another  indication  of  the  limitation  which  the  too 
exclusive  study  of  a  single  author  may  impose  on  the 
most   clear-sighted   mind  may  be  found  in  a  Httle 
attack  which   Mr.    Gladstone  makes   on  me  about 
Ixion  and  his  burning  wheel.     It  is  true  that  a  pas- 
sage of  Homer  which  speaks  of  Zeus  as  having  loved 
the  wife  of  Ixion  does  not  agree  with  the  myth  ordi- 
narily received  and  related  at    length    by  Pindar 
(Pyth.  ii),  according  to  which  it  was  Ixion  who  pur- 
sued with  his  criminal  addresses  the  spouse  of  Zeus. 
According  to  Pindar,  Ixion's  wheel  was  not  "burning," 
but  "  winged."     This  contradiction  between  Homei* 
and  Pindar,  and  the  difference  between  Pindar  and 
the  later  mythology,  only  prove  that  originally  many 
diverging  mythical  nations  connected  themselves  with 
the  name  of  Ixion,  "  the  man  on  the  wheel,"  the  "  re- 
volving one,"  but  the  narrative  of  Pindar,  an  excellent 
witness  to   the  myths  which  were  then  sung  before 
assembled  Greece,  proves  that  this  was  the  conse- 
crated form  which  at  that  time  dominated  over  all 
others.     Whether    the    wheel    was    "burning"    or 
simply  "  winged  "  is  of  no  consequence.     This  doec 
not   deprive  the  student  of  myths  of  the  right  of 
bringing  together  all  the  mythic  wheels,  which,  from 
India  to  the  Poitevins  of  France,  have  in  so  many 
countries  been  employed  to  represent  the  sun.     The 
sun  was  not  only  or  always  conceived  as  a  happy  and 
benevolent  being.     Phoebus  Apollo  himself  is  dis- 
tinguished by  something  else  than  goodness  and 
constant  happiuess,  and  the  notion  of  the  sun  as  an 
enslaved  being,  condemned  to  a  weary  task,  forced  to 
roll  on  forever,  and  therefore  wretched,  guilty  and 


■^•■1 


118 


ANSWEB   TO   MB.    GLADSTONE. 


punished,  may  be  easily  found  elsewhere  as  well  as  in 
the  myth  of  Ixion. 

May  I  now   be  allowed  to  express  the  surprise 
which  I  felt  in  reading  in  Mr.  Gladstone's  article  that 
the  Poseidon  of  Homer,  the  god  in  whom  the  Latins 
thought  they  recognized  their  Neptune,  "  is  not  the 
god  of  the  liquid  element  at  all  1 "     This  statement 
appeared  to  me  so  contrary  to  evidence  that  I  read  it 
twice  to  assure  myself  that  I  was  not  mistaken.     I 
willingly  admit  that  the  gods  of  Homer,  at  least  the 
Olympian  or  superior  gods,  must  no  longer  be  con- 
founded  materially  with   the   physical   elements,  of 
which  they  were  originally  the  simple  personifications. 
They  are  distinguished — not  absolutely  separated— 
from  them.     They  are  above  all  humanized.     As  the 
savage  beheves  that  the  soul  of  a  man  may  quit  his 
body  and  walk  abroad  according  to  its  caprices,  so 
the  Greek  of  the  Homeric  times  distinguished  the 
divine  person  from  the  physical  elements  that  imder- 
lay  it.     He  made  of  it  a  being  superior  to,  but  at  the 
same  time  resembling,  man ;    and  he  attributed  to 
this  being  all  the  liberty  of  will,  of  movement,  and  of 
action  that  could  be  supposed  to  exist  in  a  man  of 
gigantic  size,  force,  and  intelligence.     Side  by  side 
with  these  gods  now  emancipated  from  their  material 
prison,  the  Greek  mythology,  with  the  easy  syncretism 
which  belongs  to  polytheistic  systems,  kept  up  the 
memory   of  other  gods  which  were  not  in  reality 
older,   but   which   corresponded    to  older    notions: 
Hehos  by  the  side  of  Apollo,  Selene  by  the  side  of 
Artemis,  Okeanos  and  Nereus  by  the  side  of  Posei- 
don,  etc.     But  to  pretend  that   this  latter  is  not 
essentially  a  sea-god,  in  Homer  as  everywhere  else — 
an  ancient  personification  of  the  Hquid  element — ^he 


ANSWER   TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 


119 


and  his  spouse  Amphitrite,  who  surrounds  the  earth 
and  beats  it  with  her  incessant  waves — is  to  take  up 
a  position  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  beautiful  de- 
scription of  the  "Iliad"  (lib.  xiii,  10  sq.),  while 
through  the  "  Odyssey  "  the  hero  is  compelled  con- 
tinually to  sufier  upon  the  sea  the  efiects  of  the  anger 
of  the  god  of  the  seas.  Does  not  Poseidon  himself 
declare  in  the  *"IHad"  that  in  the  division  of  the 
world  between  himself  and  his  two  brothers  he 
received  for  his  lot  "  the  foaming  sea  "  (xv,  190)? 

What  does  it  signify  that  he  has  been  in  some 
places  adored  as  the  supreme  God  1 — this  is  true  of 
almost  all  the  gods  of  polytheism  ;  or  that  his  wor- 
ship may  be  found  in  the  midst  of  a  continent  ? — the 
fountains  of  water,  the  sources  of  the  rivers,  were 
there  attributed  to  him ;  or  that  he  loved  to  visit  the 
Ethiopians? — this  was  a  very  usual  taste  among  the 
Greek  gods;  Mr.  Gladstone  knows  the  reason  as 
well  as  I  do. 

I  shall  not  dilate  upon  the  objections  he  advances 
on  the  subject  of  Hera,  the  august  spouse  of  Zeus, 
who  seems  to  me  to  have  personified  the  sky  in  its 
inconstant  aspect,  mobile,  easily  disturbed,  as  if  she 
represented  the  vaiiable  and  lower  element,  while 
Zeus,  her  husband,  is  rather  the  unchanging  sky,  in 
the  majestic  serenity  of  its  unalterable  blue.  WTien 
they  are  united  and  agreed,  nothing  can  equal  the 
smiling  beauty  of  Natm-e.  When  they  are  divided 
and  disputing,  all  goes  wrong.  Moreover,  in  the 
"  Iliad,"  Hera  shares,  though  in  a  lower  measure,  the 
powers  of  Zeus.  She  also  scolds  from  the  celestial 
heights,  and  can,  in  concert  with  Boreas,  let  loose  the 
storms  (H.  xi,  42;  xv,  26).  I  know  that  the  question 
of  her  physical  origin  is  less  simple  than  that  of  most 


>%i4«i 


•»!$rmer!<mKmii»m»ii>m»mtt%.'m'wm 


no 


ANSWER   TO   MR.    GLADSTONE, 


of  the   Olympians.     I  myself  hesitated  long  about 
whether  she  ought  to  be  placed  in  the  categoi-y  of 
the  earth  goddesses  Hke  Gaia,  Rhea,  Cybele,  Themis, 
Danae,  Leto,  Semele,  and  probably  Dione  of  Dodona! 
Analogy  appeai'ed  to  lead  to  this  conclusion.    Never- 
theless, on  the  whole,  Hera  seems  to  me  to  want  the 
characteristics  which  usually  distinguish  the  earth 
goddesses.      She    has    neither    their  fixity— for  la 
donna  d  mobile— nor  their  attributes  of  divination. 
Her  typical  bird,  the  peacock,  with  its  expanding  tafl, 
seems  rather  to  suggest  the  starry  sky  than  the  earth! 
Her  position  as  the  recognized  spouse  of  the  god  of 
the  heavens,  distinct  from  the  earth  goddesses,  who 
originally  held  the  first  rank  in  the  great  number  of 
local  mythologies  (which,  it  may  be  said  in  passing, 
contributed  greatly  to  tarnish  the  conjugal  reputation 
of  Zeus),  seems  to  me  to  be  traceable  to  a  time, 
already  past  in  the  Homeric  age,  when  the  division  of 
the  world  into  three  distinct  kingdoms,  each  with  its 
supreme  god,  was  generally  recognized  in  the  Greek 
world.     From  that  period  it  must  have  appeared  nat- 
ural that  the  titular  spouse  of  the  supreme  celestial 
god  should  have  been  herself  celestial,  and  not  a  per- 
sonification of  the  marine   element  or  of  the  earth, 
which  had  in  Hades  its  supreme  god  in  Pluto,  and  its 
goddess  in  Demeter  or  Persephone,  just  as  the  sea-     ' 
god  Poseidon  had  as  his  "  parhedra"  Amphitrite,  the 
Nereid.     But  I  repeat  it,  this  question  of  Hera  is  one 
of  the  most  obscure  in  Greek  mythology;    I  do  not 
pretend  to  discuss  or  to  resolve  it  in  my  *'  Prolegom- 
ena," where  I  only  alluded  to  it  in  passing,  nor  can 
I  attempt  to  treat  it  fully  in  a  mere  controversial 
article.     I  only  wish  to  show  my  eminent  critic  that 
it  has  not  been  with  a  superficial  presumption  that  I 


ANSWER   TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 


121 


allotted  to  Hera  the  mythological  title  of  "Queen  of 

the  Shining  Heaven  "—I  am  persuaded  that  she  has 
a  right  to  it. 

In  the  next  place,  I  must  protest  against  the  term 
"  solar  theory,"  which  Mr,  Gladstone  appUes  to  my 
general  views  about  mythology.     It  is  the  "  natural- 
istic theory"  that  I  have  supported— that  is,  the  theory 
which  explains  the  genesis  of  mythologies  by  the 
personification  and  dramatization  of  natural  phenom- 
ena.    Undoubtedly  that  theory  when  well  understood 
supposes  the  action  of  the  religious  sentiment  inherent 
in  human  nature.    There  is  nothing  in  it  materiaUstic 
or  irrehgious.     Undoubtedly,  also,  the  sun  and  the 
phenomena  connected  with  it,  hold  so  prominent  a 
place  that  it  is  natural  to  expect  that  social  myths 
will  be  the  most  conspicuous  by  their  number,  their 
attraction,  and  their  variety.     But  the  sun  is  still 
only  a  part  of  a  whole  which  our  languages  and  our 
modern  minds  designate  by  the  word  nature.     Side 
by  side  with  the  solar  myths,  there  aie  myths  which 
are  purely  celestial,   marine,   and  tellurian.     It  is 
neither  accurate  nor  just,  systematically  to  describe 
the  whole  by  one  of  its  parts.     I  am  astonished  that 
the  sagacity  of  Mr.  Gladstone  has  not  long  since  led 
him -to  favor  an  explanation  which  has  found  a  brill- 
iant confii'mation  in  the  relations  discovered  between 
the  Greek  mythology  and  the  mythologies  of  India 
and   the   other   Aryan   regions,   and  which  Egypt, 
America,  Oceanica,  Africa,  even  China,  not  to  speak 
of  the  Semitic  races,  have,  I  will  venture  to  say, 
raised  to  the  position  of  demonstrated  truth.     But, 
to  judge  the  force  of  this  demonstration,  a  scholar 
must  not  confine  himself  to  the  Homeric  poetry. 
I  shall  now  pass  to  the  other  part  of  Mr.  Glad- 


kalariMMMa 


122 


ANSWER  TO  MR.  GLADSTONE. 


ANSWER  TO  MR.  GLADSTONE. 


123 


stone's  attack,  which  relates  to  the  errors  I  am  sup- 
posed to  have  committed  in  denying  that  the  BibhcaJ 
account  of  the  creation  agrees  with  the  results  of 
modem  natural  science.  This,  if  I  mistake  not,  is  the 
part  which  will  have  most  interested  the  majority  of 
his  readers. 

I  have  said  in  my  "  Prolegomena,"  while  rendering 
full  homage  to  the  beauty  and  religious  purity  of  the 
Biblical  account  of  the  creation,  that  it  contains 
assertions  contradicted  by  modem  science.  Thus 
the  firmament  destined  to  separate  the  waters  below 
from  those  above  is  represented  as  a  solid  vault ;  the 
stai's  have  been  created  after  the  earth,  the  periods  of 
creation  or  formation  are  single  days.  I  have  also, 
it  appears,  not  recognized  the  wonderfully  scientific 
order  of  the  successive  appearance  of  the  creatures 
that  inhabit  the  water,  the  air,  and  the  eai'th,  until  at 
last  man  appears  to  crown  and  complete  the  work  of 
creation.  These  are  my  principal  heresies,  in  addi- 
tion to  which  I  am  accused  of  having  put  forward 
some  bad-sounding  propositions  about  the  moral 
state  of  the  first  couple,  as  it  appears  in  the  account 
of  the  fall  in  Eden,  and  about  the  meaning  of  the 
plural  which  the  creator  employs  in  speaking  of  him- 
self. 

I  must  allow  myself  to  remind  my  readers  that  my 
object  in  treating  these  questions  was  neither  to  at- 
tack nor  to  defend  the  sacred  writings.  It  was  solely 
to  show,  by  a  succinct  analysis  of  their  chief  contents, 
that  the  partisans  of  a  primitive  doctrinal  revelation 
are  mistaken  in  supposing  that  the  Bible  itself  sup- 
ports their  view. 

For  the  rest,  even  after  the  ingenious  pleadings  of 
Mr.  Gladstone,  I  maintain  my  assertions. 


Mr.  Huxley  has  made  it  unnecessary  for  me  to 
dwell  upon  the  pretended  conformity  of  the  success- 
ive appearances  of  organized  beings  in  Genesis  with 
the  results  that  have  been  estabHshed  by  comtem- 
porary  geology.  It  is  not  true  that  the  vegetable, 
aquatic,  flying,  quadruped,  and  reptile  species  suc- 
ceeded each  other  in  their  totality  in  the  order 
specified  by  the  canonic  writer.  Mr.  Gladstone 
seems  to  have  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  at  verses  11 
and  12  the  whole  vegetable  world  in  all  its  depart- 
ments, as  the  author  of  the  narrative  knew  it,  had 
made  its  complete  appearance  at  the  command  of 
God.  Consequently,  the  objection  drawn  from  the 
absence  of  the  solar  light  remains  in  all  its  force. 
For  it  is  not  a  difiiised  hght,  concentrating  itself 
gradually  round  the  sun,  that  could  have  simul- 
taneously permitted  all  the  vegetable  species  to 
develop  over  the  surface  of  the  earth.  I  know  well 
that  a  lax  interpretation  has  transformed  fhe  days  of 
Genesis  into  periods  of  immense  length,  in  spite  of 
the  mention  of  *'  evening  "  and  "  morning  "  which 
closes  each  of  the  creative  acts.  Unfortunately,  it  is 
impossible  to  adopt  this  interpretation.  For  it  is  on 
the  supposition  that  the  days  of  the  creation  were 
similar  to  our  own  that  the  famous  commandment  of 
the  Sabbath  is  based,  and  this  is  the  motive  assigned 
for  it  by  the  Hebrew  legislator  :  "  Thou  shalt  work 
six  days  and  do  all  thy  work,  but  the  seventh  day  is 
the  Sabbath  of  the  Lord  thy  God.  Thou  shalt  do 
no  work  on  that  day  .  .  .  For  in  six  days  the 
Lord  made  the  heavens,  the  earth,  and  the  sea,  and 
all  that  is  in  them,  and  rested  the  seventh  day" 
Now,  if  the  days  of  the  creation  should  be  under- 
stood as  periods  of  thousands  or  millions  of  years,  I 


124 


ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 


beg  Mr.  Gladstone  to  explain  how  they  can  serve  as 
an  argument  in  support  of  the  command  to  work  for 
six  days  of  our  week  and  to  rest  on  the  seventh. 

I  also  regret  to  tell  him  that  the  Hebrew  word 
ordinarily  translated  in   our  versions  by  the  word 
firmament,  while  it  expresses  the  idea  of  an  expan- 
sion, of  something  that  is  stretched  out,  expresses 
also  that  of  something  solid.     This  is  why  the  firma- 
ment  supports   the  waters   that  ai-e  above  it,  and 
separates   them  according  to   the  divine  will  from 
those  w^hich  are  below  it  (v.  6,  7).      Otherwise  the 
passage  would  be  incomprehensible.     This  idea  of  a 
solid  sky  is  general  throughout  antiquity,  and  the 
sacred  text,  when  it  proceeds  to  the  account  of  the 
deluge,  does  not  fail  to  tell  us  that  the  sluices  or 
closing  parts   of   the  heavens  were   opened,  which 
brought  about  the  junction  of  the  waters  above  the 
heavens  with  the  waters  below  the  earth,  which  rose 
from  the  springs  of  the  great  abyss,  so  that  the  earth 
was  entirely  covered  from  the  second  divine  work  of 
the  creation  was  for  the  time  annulled  (comp.  Gen. 
vii,  10-12 ;  i,  6-8,  and  also  in  the  same  order  of  ideas 
Ps.  cxlviii,  4 ;  Apoc.  iv,  6).     All  these  ways  of  repre- 
senting things  suppose  the  solidity  of  the  firmament, 
and  the  LXX  in  translating  the  Hebrew  word  by 
GXBfttoDjAa  have  perfectly  given  its  sense,     ^repo^, 
in  fact,  expresses  the  idea  of  firmness  and  solidity. 

I  am  also  afraid  that  Mi'.  Gladstone  attaches  a  very 
undue  and  ill-founded  importance  to  the  metaphysical 
distinction  which  he  establishes  between  the  expres- 
sions "  to  create "  and  "  to  make,"  which  are  used 
alternately  in  the  account  in  Genesis  of  the  successive 
works  of  the  creator.  It  is  true  that  it  is  said  God 
created  the  heavens  and  the  earth  (i^  1),  God  maJj 


ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE, 


125 


the  firmament  (v.  7),   God  made  the  sun  and  the 
moon  (v.   16),  God  created  the  great  fishes  (v.  21), 
God  made  the  terrestrial  animals  (v.  25),  and  God 
created  man  (v.  27).     But  are  we  therefore  authorized 
to  think  that  the  canonical  writer  intended  to  maik 
the  enormous  difi^erence  from  a  metaphysical  point  of 
view,  which  separates  creation— that  is,  calling  being 
mto  existence  by  an  incomprehensible  act  of  divine 
power— from  the  act  of  making?    Hebraists  are  far 
from  certain  that  the  word  barah,  which  we  translate 
by  "  to  create,"  had  this  exclusive  and  rigorous  meaa- 
ing.     It  signifies,  according  to  the  dictionaries,  "  to 
form,"   "to  fashion,"  as  weH  as  "to  create."     The 
LXX  had  no  idea  of  expressing  the  distinction  be- 
tween creating  and  making.     They  might  certainly 
have  employed   alternately  the  words  xriCeiv  and 
Ttoiaiv.     They  did  not  do  so,  probably  because  the 
distmction  of  meaning  escaped  their  notice.     More- 
over, a  clear  proof  that  the  distinction  to  which  Mr. 
Gladstone  appeals  has  not  a  great  importance  is  that 
in  V.  26  God  says,  "  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image  " 
and  in  v.  27  it  is  said,  "  God  created  maa  in  his  im- 
age."    It  is  evident  from  this  that  in  the  mind  of  the 
author  the  words  "create"  and  '^maie"  might  be 
used  undistinguishably,   and  that  we  modems  are 
qmte  wrong  in  trying  to  force  our  metaphysical  dis- 
tmctions  on  old  historians  who  never  dreamed  of 
them. 

But  what  use  is  there,  it  wiU  be  said,  in  these 
subtle  discussions  ?  It  remains  not  the  less  certain 
that  canonical  writers  wished  to  express  the  great 
monotheistic  truth  that  God  is  the  only  and  absolute 
author  of  the  world  and  of  all  that  exists,  that  he  is 
the  principle  and  source  of  being,  and  this  is  all  that 


126 


ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 


it  is  necessary  from  a  religious  point  of  view  to  main- 
tain.    Be  it  so,  but  it  is  in  a  distinction,  which  is  in 
my  eyes  an  anaclironism,  that  Mr.  Gladstone  hopes 
to  find  an  answer  to  those  who  object  to  the  pre- 
tended harmony  between  Genesis  and  modem  science 
that  the  first  represents  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  as 
created  subsequently  to  the  earth,  and  intended  only 
to  throw  hght  upon  it.     I  think  in  truth  that  this 
was  the  idea  of  the  sacred  writer,  and  that  every  one 
who  reads  him  without  a  preconceived  opinion  would 
derive  this  impression  from  his  words.     But  this  is 
not  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Gladstone.     No,  he  says,  God 
did  not  create,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word  create, 
the  celestial  bodies  on  the  fourth  day,  when  the  earth 
already  existed,  freed  from  waters  and  covered  with 
plants;    he  made  them,    which  is  a  very  different 
thing ;    he  assigned  them  their  place  in  relation  to 
the  earth.     They  were,  no  doubt,  already  included  in 
the  creation  of  the  heavens  which  is  mentioned  in  the 
first  verse.     The  fourth  day  only  marks  the  moment 
of  the  final  exclusive  concentration  of  light  in  the  sun 
and  of  its  reflection  on  the  moon  and  on  the  planets. 
I  must  here  stop  :  I  do  not  wish  to  prolong  this  ex- 
planation to  the  point  of  giving  it  an  appearance  of 
irony.     I  would  only  submit  this  question  to  any  im- 
paitial  reader—when  it  is  said  that  God  determined 
that  there  should  be  light-giving  bodies  in  the  firma- 
ment, to  divide  the  seasons,  and  to  shine  upon  the 
eaith,  that  God  made  them,  and  that  God  placed 
them  in  the  firmament,  is  it  conceivable  that  such 
words  were  intended  to  convey  that  these  hght-bear- 
ing- bodies  already  existed,  and  that  the  work  of  the 
creator  on  that  day  consisted  simply  of  assigning  them 
»  place,  an  orbit,  and  a  power  of  radiation  ?  Whether 


\ 


ANSWER    TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 


127 


X 


God  made  or  created  the  stars  on  the  fourth  day, 
after  the  earth  and  its  vegetation,  the  difficulty 
remains  absolutely  the  same. 

Having  said  this,  I  have  now  only  to  defend  myself 
against  two  reproaches  of  a  certain  importance. 

Mr.  Gladstone  blames  me  for  having  misinterpreted 
the  passage,  **  Let  us  make  man  in  our  image,"  in 
which  orthodox  Christianity  wishes  to  see  an  allusion 
to  the  Trinity.     I  have  suggested  that  this  is  either 
a  pluralls  majestlcus,  or  that  this  passage  may  im- 
ply the  existence  of  celestial  beings,  the  Bene  Elohim, 
in  whose   presence   the  creator  was  displaying  his 
energies,  and  whom  he  invites  to  some  kind  of  coop- 
eration when  he  comes  to  the  last  and  the  most  per- 
fect of  his  works.    I  have  not  concealed  my  preference 
for  the  second  explanation  which  appears  to  me  sup- 
.  ported  by  the  analogy  of  other  passages  of  the  Old 
Testament,  such  as  Gen.  iii,  22  ;  vi,  2 ;  Job  xxxviii,  7. 
I  must  dechne  absolutely  the  honor  which  Mr.  Glad- 
stone is  good  enough  to  do  me  in  representing  me  as 
opposing  proudly  and  presumptuously  my  sohtary 
opinion  to  the  traditions  of  the  Christian  church. 
There  are  passages  in  the  Bible,  as,  for  example, 
Isaiah  vu,  14,  concerning  which  the  imanimity  of  tra- 
dition does  not  prevent  it  from  being  very  erroneous. 
But  as  for  the  passage  we  are  now  discussing,  I  am 
very  far  from  being  alone  in  my  opinion,  and  I  wait 
for  some  other  refutation  than  an  appeal  to  a  tradi- 
tion of  which  those  who  alone  for  so  many  centuries 
knew  how  to  read  or  to  interpret  the  original  Hebrew 
were  profoundly  ignorant. 

In  the  last  place  Mr.  Gladstone  is  much  surprised 
that,  relying  on  the  picture  which  the  author  of  the 
second  chapter  of  Genesis  traces  of  the  life  of  the  first 


128 


ANSWER    TO    MR.    GLADSTONE. 


human  couple  in  Eden,  I  say  that  he  represents  them 
as  ignorant  of  the  elementary  notions  of  morality. 
He  admits,  indeed,  that  it  is  only  possible  to  ascribe 
to  them  "  the  morality  of  a  httle  child,  the  undevel- 
oped morality  of  obedience."     This  is  already  some 
approach  to  an  agreement.     But  in  my  turn  I  will 
venture  to  ask  him  if  he  has  duly  weighed  the  full 
significance  of  the  declaration  that  they  were  without 
the  knowledge   of  good  and  evil?    that  thej   only 
acquired  this  knowledge  by  a  transgression  the  im- 
moral  character   of   which    must    necessarily    have 
escaped  them  1    I  have  not  to  justify  or  to  criticise 
the  canonical  writer.     I  confine  myself  to  registeiing 
his  statement.     There  are  but  these  two  alternatives. 
Either  Adam  and  Eve  before  eating  the  forbidden 
fruit  knew  that  they  were  committing,  not  a  false  cal- 
culation, not  an  act  of  imprudence,  but  a  fault  in  the  . 
moral  sense  of  the  word,  and  in  that  case  it  is  inad- 
missible that  they  had  no  knowledge  of  good  and  evil 
until  after  they  had  eaten  it;  or  else  they  had,  as  the 
canonical  narrative  affirms,  up  to  this  time  no  knowl- 
edge of  good  or  evil,  and  in  that  case  I  am  perfectly 
justified  in  saying  that  they  were  strangers  to  the 
most  elementaiy  notions  of  morahty.     And  I  see  a 
confirmation  of  this  opinion  in  the  incident  related 
by  the   sacred  author  with   so  much  psychological 
truth,  according  to  which  the  sentiment  of  shame 
which  distinguishes  so  clearly  man,  the  moral  being, 
from  the  brute,  only  awoke  in  them  after  they  had 
eaten  the  forbidden  food. 

No  doubt  much  may  be  said  about  the  meaning 
or  the  possible  meanings  of  this  mythical  story. 
The  great  difficulty  in  penetrating  to  its  true  mean- 
ing comes  not  onl^  from  the  fact  that  a  later  theology 


ANSWER   TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 


129 


has  based  upon  its  poetry  imposing  dogmas  of  which 
the  author  had  no  idea,  and  that  many  succeeding 
generations  have  only  looked  on  it  through  the  facti- 
tious lights  created  by  these  traditional  dogmas ;  it 
comes  also  from  the  fact  that  the  author  himself  could 
not  completely  extricate  himself  from  the  apparent 
contradiction  of  the  two  principles  to  which  he  tries 
to  do  justice.     On  the  one  side  man  has  advanced ; 
he  knows  what  he  did  not  know ;   he  has  become  a 
moral  being ;  the  serpent  has  not  Hed ;  his  eyes  have 
been  opened.     On  the  other  side  the  progress  seems 
to  have  been  accompHshed  against  God  and  in  spite 
of  God.     We  find  elsewhere  this  double  sentiment  of 
a  timid  piety,  which,  while  recognizing  the  progress 
of  man  as  good  in  itself,  finds  it  difficult  to  imagine 
that  it   does  not  constitute  an    insolent,   impious, 
guilty  revolt  against  the  sovereign  God.     Is  not  this 
the  point  of  view  of  old  ^schylus  in  the  drama  of 
"  Prometheus  ?  "    But  it  is  not  now  our  business  to 
resolve  the  antinomies  involved  in  the  narratives  we 
are  trying  to  interpret.     It  is  sufficient  to  interpret 
them  exactly.     How  many  of  the  most  eminent  minds 
find  it  difficult  to  read  them  without  infusing  into 
them  ideas  or  points  of  view  which  distort  their  mean- 
ii^g  !    The  same  author  in  connecting  with  a  divine 
malediction  provoked  by  the  first  transgression  cer- 
tain collective  evils  which  afflict  the  man,  the  woman, 
and  the  serpent,   says  that   God  pronounced  that 
there  should  be  henceforth  enmity  between  the  pos- 
terity of  the  serpent  and  the  posterity  of  the  woman, 
that  the  posterity  of  the  woman  should  attack  the 
serpent  on  the  head  (or  bruise  its  head),  and  that  the 
serpent  or  its  posterity  should  attack  on  the  heel  the 
posterity  of  the  woman.     Others  besides  myself  have 


130 


ANSWER  TO  MR.  GLADSTONE. 


ANSWER  TO  ME.  GLADSTONE. 


131 


thought  that  it  has  been  a  mistake  in  the  Christian 
church  to  see  a  prophecy  of  the  Redemption  in  this 
curse  which  leaves  the  two  adversaiies  in  a  relation 
of  mortal  enduring  hostility,  without  giving  any 
prospect  of  its  cessation  (compare  Gen.  iii,  15).  But 
this  displeases  Mr.  Gladstone.  He  thinks  he  finds 
an  indication  of  the  superiority  and  final  victory  of 
man  in  the  fact  that  man  attacks  his  enemy  on  the 
head,  and  that  his  enemy  can  only  attack  him  on  the 
heel,  for  the  head  is  much  more  essential  to  life  than 
the  foot.  Good  heavens  !  If  Mr.  Gladstone  were 
unfortunate  enough  to  be  bitten  on  the  heel  by  a  ven- 
omous serpent,  would  his  lot  be  much  more  favorable 
than  that  of  the  serpent  whose  head  he  had  crushed? 

I  shall  not  pause  upon  a  little  cavil  which  he  raises 
against  me  about  the  somewhat  strange  text  Genesis 
iv,  26,  generally  translated,  "  Then  they  began  to  in- 
voke the  name  of  Jahveh."  The  importance  of  this 
Jahvistic  text  comes  especially  from  its  contradiction 
with  the  Elohistic  text,  Exodus  vi,  2,  3,  from  which  it 
seems  to  follow  that  the  name  of  Jahveh  was  un- 
known to  the  patriai'chs.  However  this  may  be,  and 
without  entering  into  a  discussion  which  would  be 
necessarily  too  long,  and  even  if  the  phrase  ought  to 
be  put  in  the  singular,  with  the  Samaritan  codex  and 
the  LXX,  which  the  Hebrew  text  puts  in  the  plural, 
I  maintain  that  this  text  may  be  always  justly  ad- 
duced against  those  who  pretend  that  the  first  man 
received  a  doctrinal  revelation  in  the  beginning. 
This  is  all  that  I  attempted  to  maintain  in  my  "  Prol- 
egomena," and  I  do  not  think  that  the  arguments  of 
my  respected  critic  aie  of  a  nature  to  weaken  the 
proof. 

I  am  sincerely  grateful  to  him  for  not  having  con- 


founded me  with  those  who  despise  or  detest  religion 
itself.     Though  much  detached  from  the  dogmatic 
traditions  of   the  church,  I  am  in  truth  more  and 
more  convinced  of  the  legitimacy  of  the  rehgious 
principle  in  the  human  mind.     I  see  in  it  a  prophetic 
indication  of  the  higher  destiny  of  man ;  and  I  must 
add  that  it  is  my  conviction  that  religion  among  civ- 
ilized men  is  for  ever  destined  to  move  in  the  same 
direction  which  the  gospel  gave  it  eighteen  hundred 
years  ago.     Either  man  will  cease  to  be  religious,  or 
he  will  find   himself   compelled  to  be  in  a  certain 
measure  Christian.     I  do  not  recognize  myself,  there- 
fore, in  the  eloquent  and  moving  picture  which  Mr. 
Gladstone  has  drawn  at  the  end  of  his  ai'ticle  of  the 
iconoclasts  who  are  exulting  in  the  idea  that  they 
have  destroyed  one  or  other  of  the  beHefs  from  which 
so  many  generations  have  drawn  their  best  consola- 
tion and  hopes.     If  I  have  been  able  like  others  to 
greet  with  enthusiasm  the  comj^lete  Hberty  of  con- 
science and  intelligence  contained  in  principle  in  the 
gospel,  partially  restored  at   the  Reformation  and 
completely  w  on  in  our  own  day,  I  have  also  more  than 
once  known  what  it  is  to  bid  melancholy  farewell  to 
traditional  doctrines  which  had  charmed  my  childhood 
and  my  youth  with  their  grandeiu-,  their  poetry,  and 
their  mystic  beauty.     The  fruits  of  the  tree  of  knowl- 
edge are  sometimes  bitter,  and  Mr.  Gladstone  is  quite 
right  in  protesting  against  the  brutality  with  which 
the  venerable  roots  of  the  ancient  faith  are  sometimes 
treated. 

But  allow  mo  to  tell  him  that  there  is  one  thing  of 
far  higher  importance  than  the  propriety  and  the  de- 
cency which  he  demands  from  contemporaiy  criticism. 
It  is  that  it  should  be  inspired  by  a  genuine  and 


/ 


132 


ANSWER   TO   MR.    GLADSTONE. 


disinterested  love  of  truth.  I  can  well  imagine  that 
the  defenders  of  expiring  paganism  or  the  sincere 
Roman  Catholics  who  lived  during  the  destructive 
revolution  of  Luther,  shed  many  a  tear  over  the  kind 
of  fury  with  which  men  were  sapping  the  very 
foundations  of  systems  w^hich  seemed  to  them  the 
most  sacred  and  the  most  consoling  in  the 
world.  Yet  the  Christians  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury, the  Protestants  of  the  sixteenth,  were  in 
the  truth;  they  were  on  the  path  that  leads  upwai'd 
to  truth.  Let  us  keep  clear  of  all  passion,  whether 
it  be  conservative  or  negative.  Passion  always 
blinds.  But  let  us  have  the  courage  to  seek  for  and 
express  the  truth,  as  it  appears  to  our  minds,  in  all 
its  simplicity  and  its  purity.  Do  not  let  us  be 
alarmed  by  the  toiTents  swollen  with  the  autumnal 
rains,  nor  yet  with  the  frost  that  congeals  the  waters 
and  the  plants.  In  due  time  the  spring  will  come 
with  its  brightness  and  its  flow^ers.  The  worst  thing 
that  could  happen  would  be  that  humanity  should 
cease  to  discuss  those  great  problems  which  consti- 
tute at  once  its  torment,  its  nobihty,  and  its  happi- 
ness. This  danger  is  not  now  to  be  feared.  On  the 
contrary,  we  may  hope  that  from  the  angry  shock  of 
opposing  religious  principles  and  ideas  a  great  syn- 
thesis will  arise  which  may  satisfy  the  wants  and 
aspirations  of  all.  We  shall  probably  not  see  it  with 
the  eyes  of  the  flesh,  but  we  may  all  contribute  to  its 
advent  by  seeking  for  truth  in  religion  as  in  all  other 
things,  laboriously,  faithfully,  and  courageously. 
Neither  the  rage  of  an  iiTeligious  fanaticism,  nor  the 
sentimentality  of  an  emasculated  romanticism,  must 
guide  us  in  this  voyage  toward  the  unknown  or  the 
little  known.     The  love  of  trnth  is  but  one  of  the 


\ 


ANSWER    TO   MR,    GLADSTONE. 


133 


elements  of  the  love  of  God,  since  truth  is  but  one  of 
the  aspects  of  his  supreme  perfection.  If  Christ  Hved 
and  spoke  in  the  midst  of  us,  unless  he  were  untrue 
to  himself,  he  could  speak  no  other  language.  Let 
us  search,  study,  work,  each  in  his  sphere,  for  the 
good,  the  just,  and  the  true,  in  nature,  in  society,  in 
the  soul.  I  know  an  illustrious  statesman  who  in  our 
days  has  been  one  of  the  great  workers  of  God  in  the 
work  of  justice  on  the  eai'th.  Perhaps  he  has  been 
less  happy  in  his  excursions  into  the  field  of  religious 
science.  It  is  still  a  great  and  salutai'y  example 
which  he  has  given  to  his  contemporaries  in  turning 
to  this  side  also  his  powerful  and  brilliant  intellect. 
However  this  may  be,  just  because  we  believe  in 
God,  let  us  never  lose  our  faith  in  the  final  results  of 
sincere  search  for  truth  everywhere  and  always, 
whether  it  be  in  the  vast  and  obscure  fields  of  phys- 
ical nature  or  in  the  records  which  embalm  the 
experiences  and  the  beliefs  of  our  race.  This  work, 
can-ied  on  by  very  difierent  intellects,  cannot  be 
accompHshed  without  discussions  or  without  errors. 
But  let  us  never  lose  courage.  Magna  est  Veritas  et 
prcevalebit. 

Albert  Reville,  D.D. 


MR.    GLADSTONE   AND   GENESIS. 


135 


MH.   GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 

BY   T.    H.   HUXLEY. 

In  controversy,  as  in  coui'tsbip,  the  good  old  rule 
to  be  off  with  the  old  before  one  is  on  with  the  new 
greatly  commends  itself  to  my  sense  of  expediency. 
And  therefore  it  appeal's  to  me  desirable  that  I  should 
preface  such  observations  as  I  may  have  to  offer  upon 
the  cloud  of  arguments  (the  relevancy  of  which  to  the 
issue  which  I  had  ventured  to  raise  is  not  always 
obvious)  put  forth  by  Mr.  Gladstone  in  the  January 
number  of  this  Bevie^c,  by  an  endeavor  to  make  clear 
to  such  of  our  readers  as  have  not  had  the  advantage 
of  a  forensic  education  the  present  net  result  of  the 
discussion. 

I  am  quite  aware  that,  in  imdertaking  this  task,  I 
run  all  the  risks  to  which  the  man  who  presumes  to 
deal  judicially  with  his  own  cause  is  liable.  But  it  is 
exactly  because  I  do  not  shun  that  risk,  but,  rather, 
earnestly  desire  to  be  judged  by  him  who  cometh 
after  me,  provided  that  he  has  the  knowledge  and 
impartiaHty  appropiiate  to  a  judge,  that  I  adopt  my 
present  course. 

In  the  article  on  the  "  Dawn  of  Creation  and  of  Wor- 
ship"  it  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Gladstone  unre- 
servedly commits  himself  to  three  propositions.  The 
first  is  that,  according  to  the  writer  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, the  "water-population,"  the  "  air-population," 
and  the  "  land-population  "  of  the  globe  were  created 
successively,  in  the  order  named.  In  the  second 
place,  Mr.  Gladstone  authoritatively  asserts  that  this 


1 


(as  part  of  his  "  fourfold  order  ")  has  been  "  so  affirmed 
in  our  time  by  natui'al  science,  that  it  may  be  taken 
as  a  demonstrated  conclusion  and  established  fact." 
In  the  third  place,  IVIr.  Gladstone  argues  that  the  fact 
of  this  coincidence  of  the  Pentateuchal  story  with 
the  results  of  modem  investigation  makes  it  "  impos- 
sible to  avoid  the  conclusion,  first,  that  either  this 
writer  was  gifted  with  faculties  passing  all  human 
experience,  or  else  his  knowledge  was  divine."  And, 
having  settled  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  the  first 
"  branch  of  the  alternative  is  truly  nominal  and  un- 
real," Ml*.  Gladstone  continues,  "  So  stands  the  plea 
for  a  revelation  of  truth  from  God,  a  plea  only  to  be 
met  by  questioning  its  possibiHty." 

I  am  a  simple-minded  person,  wholly  devoid  of 
subtlety  of  intellect,  so  that  I  willingly  admit  that 
there  may  be  depths  of  alternative  meaning  in  these 
propositions  out  of  all  soundings  attainable  by  my 
poor  plummet.  Still,  there  are  a  good  many  people 
who  suffer  under  a  like  intellectual  limitation ;  and, 
for  once  in  my  life,  I  feel  that  I  have  the  chance  of 
attaining  that  position  of  a  representative  of  average 
opinion  which  appears  to  be  the  modem  ideal  of  a 
leader  of  men,  when  I  make  free  confession  that,  after 
turning  the  matter  over  in  my  mind  with  all  the  aid 
derived  from  a  careful  consideration  of  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's reply,  I  cannot  get  away  from  my  original 
conviction  that,  if  Mr.  Gladstone's  second  proposition 
can  be  shown  to  be  not  merely  inaccurate,  but  di- 
rectly contradictory  of  facts  known  to  everyone  who 
is  acquainted  with  the  elements  of  natural  science, 
the  third  proposition  collapses  of  itself. 

And  it  was  this  conviction  which  led  me  to  enter 
upon  the  present  discussion.     I  fancied  that  if  my 


\ 


136 


MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 


MB.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 


137 


respected  clients,  the  people  of  average  opinion  and 
capacity,  could  once  be  got  distinctly  to  conceive 
that  Mr.  Gladstone's  views  as  to  the  proper  method 
of  dealing  with  grave  and  difficult  scientific  and 
rehgious  problems  had  permitted  him  to  base  a  sol- 
emn "plea  for  a  revelation  of  truth  from  God  "  upon 
an  error  as  to  a  matter  of  fact,  from  which  the  intel- 
ligent perusal  of  a  manual  of  paleontology  would 
have  saved  him,  I  need  not  trouble  myself  to  occupy 
their  time  and  attention  with  further  comments  upon 
his  contribution  to  apologetic  literature.  It  is  for 
others  to  judge  whether  I  have  efficiently  canied  out 
my  project  or  not.  It  certainly  does  not  count  for 
much  that  I  should  be  unable  to  find  any  flaw  in 
my  own  case,  but  I  think  that  it  counts  for  a  good 
deal  that  Mr.  Gladstone  appears  to  have  been  equally 
unable  to  do  so.  He  does,  indeed,  make  a  great 
parade  of  authorities,  and  I  have  the  greatest  respect 
for  those  authorities  whom  Mr.  Gladstone  mentions. 
If  he  will  get  them  to  sign  a  joint  memorial  to  the 
effect  that  our  present  paleontological  evidence 
proves  that  birds  appeared  before  the  "  land-popula- 
tion "  of  teiTestrial  reptiles,  I  shall  think  it  my  duty 
to  reconsider  my  position — but  not  till  then. 

It  will  be  observed  that  I  have  cautiously  used  the 
word  "  appeal's  "  in  referring  to  what  seems  to  me 
to  be  absence  of  any  real  answer  to  my  criticisms  in 
Mr.  Gladstone's  reply.  For  I  must  honestly  confess 
that,  notwithstanding  long  and  painful  strivings  after 
clear  insight,  I  am  still  uncertain  whether  Mr.  Glad- 
stone's "  Defense  "  means  that  the  great  "  plea  for  a 
revelation  from  God "  is  to  be  left  to  perish  in  the 
dialectic  desert,  or  whether  it  is  to  be  withdrawn 


I: 
t 


under  the  protection  of  such  skirmishers  as  are  avail- 
able for  covering  retreat. 

In  particular  the  remai'kable  disquisition  which 
covers  pages  86  to  92  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  last  con- 
tribution has  greatly  exercised  my  mind.  Socrates 
is  reported  to  have  said  of  the  works  of  Herachtus 
that  he  who  attempted  to  comprehend  them  should 
be  a  "  Delian  swimmer,"  but  that,  for  his  part,  what 
he  could  understand  was  so  good  that  he  was  dis- 
posed to  believe  in  the  excellence  of  that  which  he 
found  uninteUigible.  In  endeavoring  to  make  myself 
master  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  meaning  in  these  pages,  I 
have  often  been  overcome  by  a  feeling  analogous  to 
that  of  Socrates,  but  not  quite  the  same.  That  which 
I  do  understand,  in  fact,  has  appeared  to  me  so  very 
much  the  reverse  of  good  that  I  have  sometimes  per- 
mitted myself  to  doubt  the  value  of  that  which  I  do 
not  understand. 

In  this  part  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  reply,  in  fact,  I  find 
nothing  of  which  the  bearing  upon  my  arguments  is 
clear  to  me,  except  that  which  relates  to  the  question 
whether  reptiles,  so  far  as  they  are  represented  by 
tortoises  and  the  great  majority  of  lizards  and  snakes, 
which  are  land  animals,  are  creeping  things  in  the 
sense  of  the  Pentateuchal  writer  or  not. 

I  have  every  respect  for  the  singer  of  the  Song  of 
the  Three  Children  (whoever  he  may  have  been);  I 
desu-e  to  cast  no  shadow  of  doubt  upon,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  marvel  at,  the  exactness  of  Mr.  Gladstone's 
information  as  to  the  considerations  which  *'  affected 
the  method  of  the  Mosaic  writer ;"  nor  do  I  venture 
to  doubt  that  the  inconvenient  intrusion  of  these  con- 
temptible reptiles — *'  a  family  fallen  from  greatness  " 
(p.  91),  a  miserable  decayed  aristocracy  reduced  to 


138 


MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 


MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 


139 


mere  *'  skulkers  about  tlie  earth  "  (ibid.) — in  conse- 
quence apparently  of  difficulties  about  the  occupation 
of  land  arising  out  of  the  earth-hunger  of  their  former 
serfs,  the  mammals — into  an  apologetic  argument, 
which   otherwise  would  run   quite  smoothly,  is  in 
every  way  to  be  deprecated.     Still,   the  wretched 
creatures    stand    there,    importunately    demanding 
notice  ;  and,  however  different  may  be  the  practice  in 
that  contentious   atmosphere  with  which  Mr.  Glad- 
stone expresses  and  laments  his  familiarity,  in  the 
atmosphere  of  science  it  really  is  of  no  avail  whatever 
to  shut  one's  eyes  to  facts,  or  to  try  to  bury  them 
out  of  sight  under  a  tumulus  of  rhetoric.     That  is 
my  experience  of  "  the  Elynian  regions  of  Science," 
wherein  it  is  a  pleasure  to  me  to  think  that  a  man  of 
Mr.  Gladstone's  intimate  knowledge  of  English  life 
during  the  last  quaiter  of  a  centuiy  believes  my 
philosophic  existence  to  have  been  rounded  off  in  un- 
broken equanimity. 

However  reprehensible,  and  indeed  contemptible, 
terrestrial  reptiles  may  be,  the  only  question  which 
appears  to  me  to  be  relevant  to  my  argument  is  whether 
these  creature  are  or  are  not  comprised  under  the  de- 
nomination of  "  everything  that  creepeth  upon  the 
ground." 

Mr.  Gladstone  speaks  of  the  author  of  the  first 
chapter  of  Genesis  as  "  the  Mosaic  writer  ; "  I  sup- 
pose, therefore,  that  he  will  admit  that  it  is  equally 
proper  to  speak  of  the  author  of  Leviticus  as  the 
"  Mosaic  writer."  Whether  such  a  phrase  would  be 
used  by  any  one  who  had  an  adequate  conception  of 
the  assured  results  of  modern  Bibhcal  criticism  is 
another  matter ;  but,  at  any  rate,  it  cannot  be  denied 
that  Leviticus  has  as  much  claim  to  Mosaic  author- 


ship as  Genesis.  Therefore,  if  one  wants  to  know 
the  sense  of  a  phrase  used  in  Genesis,  it  will  be-  well 
to  see  what  Leviticus  has  to  say  on  the  matter. 
Hence,  I  commend  the  following  extract  from  the 
eleventh  chapter  of  Leviticus  to  Mr.  Gladstone's 
serious  attention : 

And  these  are  they  which  are  unclean  unto  you  among  the 
creeping  things  that  creep  upon  the  earth :  the  weasel,  and 
the  mouse,  and  the  great  lizard  after  its  kind,  and  the  gecko, 
and  the  land-crocodile,  and  the  sand-lizard,  and  the  cha- 
meleon. These  are  they  which  are  unclean  to  you  among  all 
that  creep  (v.  29-31. 

The  merest  Sunday-school  exegesis  therefore  suf- 
fices to  prove  that  when  the  "  Mosaic  writer  "  in  Gen- 
esis i,  24,  speaks  of  "  creeping  things  "  he  means  to 
include  lizards  among  them. 

This  being  so,  it  is  agreed  on  all  hands  that  ter- 
restrial lizards,  and  other  reptiles  allied  to  lizards, 
occur  in  the  Permian  strata.  It  is  further  agreed 
that  the  Triassic  strata  were  deposited  after  these. 
Moreover,  it  is  well  known  that,  even  if  certain  foot- 
prints are  to  be  taken  as  unquestionable  evidence  of 
the  existence  of  birds,  they  are  not  known  to  occur  in 
rocks  earHer  than  the  Trias,  while  indubitable  remains 
of  birds  are  to  be  met  with  only  much  later.  Hence 
it  follows  that  natural  science  does  not  "  affirm  "  the 
statement  that  birds  were  made  on  the  fifth  day,  and 
"  everything  that  creepeth  on  the  ground "  on  the 
sixth,  on  which  IVIr.  Gladstone  rests  his  order ;  for,  as 
is  shown  by  Leviticus,  the  "  Mosaic  writer  "  includes 
hzards  among  his  *'  creeping  things." 

Perhaps  I  have  given  myself  superfluous  trouble 
in  the  preceding  argument,  for  I  find  that  Mr.  Glad- 
stone is  wilhng  to  assume  (he  does  not  say  to  admit) 


140 


MR.    GLADSTONE   AND   GENESIS. 


that  the  statement  in  the  text  of  Genesis  as  to  rep- 
tiles cannot  "in  all  points  be  sustained."  But  my 
position  is  that  it  cannot  be  sustained  in  any  point, 
so  that,  after  all,  it  has  perhaps  been  as  well  to  go 
over  the  evidence  again.  And  then  Mr.  Gladstone 
proceeds,  as  if  nothing  had  happened,  to  tell  us  that — 

There  remain  great  unshaken  facts  to  be  weighed.  First, 
the  fact  that  such  a  record  should  have  been  made  at  all. 

As  most  peoples  have  their  cosmogonies,  this 
"  fact "  does  not  strike  me  as  having  much  value. 

Secondly,  the  fact  that,  instead  of  dwellmg  in  generalities, 
it  has  placed  itself  under  the  severe  conditions  of  a  chrono- 
logical order  reaching  from  the  first  nism  of  chaotic  matter 
to  the  consummated  production  of  a  fair  and  goodly,  a  fur- 
nished and  a  peopled  world. 

This  "  fact  "  can  be  regarded  as  of  value  only  by 
ignoring  the  fact  demonstrated  in  my  previous  paper 
that  natural  science  does  not  confirm  the  order 
asserted  so  far  as  living  things  are  concerned ;  and 
by  upsetting  a  fact  to  be  brought  to  light  presently, 
to  wit,  that,  in  regaid  to  the  rest  of  the Pentateuchal 
cosmogony,  prudent  science  has  very  litle  to  say  one 
way  or  the  other. 

Thirdly,  the  fact  that  its  cosmogony  seems,  in  the  light  of 
the  nineteenth  century,  to  draw  more  and  more  of  coun- 
tenance from  the  best  natural  philosophy. 

I  have  already  questioned  the  accuracy  of  this 
statement,  and  I  do  not  observe  that  mere  repetition 
adds  to  its  value. 

And,  fourthly,  that  it  has  described  the  successive  origms 
of  the  five  great  categories  of  present  life  with  which  human 
experience  was  and  is  conversant,  in  that  order  which  geo- 
logical authority  confirms. 

By  comparison  with   a   sentence  on  page  92,  in 


MR.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS. 


141 


which  a  fivefold  order  is  substituted  for  the  "  four- 
fold order,"  on  which  the  "  plea  for  Kevelation  "  was 
originally  founded,  it  appears  that  these  five  cate- 
gories are  "  plants,  fishes,  birds,  mammals  and  man," 
which,  Mr.  Gladstone  affirms,  "  are  given  to  us  in 
Genesis  in  the  order  of  succession  in  which  they  are 
also  given  by  the  latest  geological  authoiities." 

I  must  venture  to  demur  to  this  statement.  I 
showed,  in  my  previous  paper,  that  there  is  no  reason 
to  doubt  that  the  term  "great  sea  monsters  "  (used  in 
Genesis  i,  21)  includes  the  most  conspicuous  of  great 
sea  animals — namely,  whales,  dolphins,  porpoises, 
manatees,  and  dugongs  ;*  and  as  these  are  indubit- 
able mammals,  it  is  impossible  to  affirm  that  mam- 
mals come  after  birds,  which  are  said  to  have  been 
created  on  the  same  day.  Moreover,  I  pointed  out 
that  as  these  Cetacea  and  Sirenia  are  certainly  modi- 
fied land  animals,  their  existence  impHes  the  ante- 
cedent existence  of  land  mammals. 

Furthermore,  I  have  to  remark  that  the  term 
"  fishes,"  as  used  technically  in  zoology,  by  no  means 
covers  all  the  moving  creatures  that  have  life,  which 
are  bidden  to  "  fill  the  waters  in  the  seas"  (Genesis 
i,  20-22).  Marine  moUusks  and  Crustacea,  echino- 
derms,  corals,  and  foraminifera  are  not  technically 
fishes.  But  they  are  abundant  in  the  paleozoic  rocks, 
ages  upon  ages  older  than  those  in  which  the  first 
evidences  of  true  fishes  appear.  And  if ,  in  a  geolog- 
ical book,  Mr.  Gladstone  finds  the  quite  true  state- 
ment that  plants  appeared  before  fishes,  it  is  only  by 
a  complete  misunderstanding  that  he  can  be  led  to 

♦Both  dolphins  and  dugongs  occur  in  the  Red  Sea,  por- 
poises and  dolphins  in  the  Mediterranean;  so  that  the 
''  Mosaic  writer"  may  well  have  been  acquainted  with  them. 


m 


142 


MR.    GLADSTONE    AND    GENESIS, 


Ij!! 


imagine  it  serves  his  purpose.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
at  the  present  moment,  it  is  a  question  whether,  on 
the  bare  evidence  afforded  by  fossils,  the  marine  creep- 
ing things  or  the  marine  plant  has  the  seniority.  No 
cautious  paleontologist  would  express  a  decided  opin- 
ion on  the  matter.  But,  if  we  are  to  read  the  Penta- 
teuchal  statement  as  a  scientific  document  (and,  in 
spite  of  all  protests  to  the  contrary,  those  who  bring 
it  into  comparison  with  science  do  seek  to  make  a 
scientific  document  of  it),  then,  as  it  is  quite  clear, 
that  only  terrestrial  plants  of  high  organization  are 
spoken  of  in  verses  11  and  12,  no  paleontologist 
would  hesitate  to  say  that,  at  present,  the  records  of 
sea  animal  life  are  vastly  older  than  those  of  any  land 
plant  describable  as  *'  grass,  herb  yielding  seed,  or 
fruit-tree." 

Thus,  although,  in  Mr.  Gladstone's  "  Defense,"  the 
"  old  order  passeth  into  new,"  his  case  is  not  im- 
proved. The  fivefold  order  is  no  more  "  affirmed  in 
our  time  by  natural  science  "  to  be  a  "  demonstrated 
conclusion  and  established  fact "  than  the  fourfold 
order  was.  Natural  science  appears  to  me  to  decline 
to  have  anything  to  do  with  either;  they  are  as 
wrong  in  detail  as  they  are  mistaken  in  principle. 

There  is  another  change  of  position,  the  value  of 
which  is  not  so  apparent  to  me  as  it  may  well  seem 
to  be  to  those  who  are  unfamiliar  with  the  subject 
under  discussion.  Mr.  Gladstone  discards  his  three 
groups  of  "water-population,"  "air-population,"  and 
"land-population,"  and  substitutes  for  them  (1) 
fishes,  (2)  birds,  (3)  mammals,  (4)  man.  Moreover, 
it  is  assumed  in  a  note  that  "  the  higher  or  ordinary 
mammals"  alone  were  known  to  the  "  Mosaic  writer  " 
(p.  78).    No  doubt  it  looks,  at  first,  as  if  something 


MR.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS. 


143 


,1 

t 

1 


were  gained  by  this  alteration;  for,  as  I  have  just 
pointed  out,  the  word  "fishes "  can  be  used  in  two 
senses,  one  of  which  has  a  deceptive  appearance  of 
adjustabihty  to  the  "Mosaic"  account.  Then  the 
inconvenient  reptiles  are  banished  out  of  sight ;  and, 
finally,  the  question  of  the  exact  meaning  of  "higher" 
and  "  ordinary"  in  the  case  of  mammals  opens  up  the 
prospect  of  a  hopeful  logomachy.  But  what  is  the 
good  of  it  all  in  the  face  of  Leviticus  on  the  one 
hand  and  of  paleontogy  on  the  other  ? 

As,  in  my  apprehension,  there  is  not  a  shadow  of 
justification  for  the  suggestion  that  when  the  Penta- 
teuchaJ  writer  says  "fowl"  he  excludes  bats  (which, 
as  we  shall  see  directly,  are  expressly  included  under 
"fowl"  in  Leviticus),  and  as  I  have  already  shown 
that  he  demonstrably  includes  reptiles,  as  well  as 
mammals,  among  the  creeping  things  of  the  land,  I 
may  be  permitted  to  spaie  my  readers  further  dis- 
cussion of  the  "  fivefold  order."  On  the  whole,  it  is 
seen  to  be  rather  more  inconsistent  with  Genesis  than 
its  fourfold  predecessor. 

But  I  have  yet  a  fresh  order  to  face.  Mr.  Glad- 
stone understands  "  the  main  statements  of  Genesis, 
in  successive  order  of  time,  but  without  any  measure- 
ment of  its  divisions,  to  be  as  follows  : 

1.  A  period  of  land,  anterior  to  all  life  (v.  9  and  10). 

2.  A  period  of  vegetable  life,  anterior  to  animal  life  (v.  11 
and  12). 

3.  A  period  of  animal  life,  in  the  or^er  of  fishes  (v.  20). 

4.  Another  stage  of  animal  life,  in  the  order  of  birds. 
'  5.  Another,  in  the  order  of  beasts  (v.  24  and  25). 

6.  Last  of  all,  man  (v.  26  and  27). 

Mr.  Gladstone  then  tries  to  find  the  proof  of  the 


144 


MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 


MK.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 


145 


occurrence  of  a  similar  succession  in  sundry  excellent 
works  on  geology. 

I  am  really  grieved  to  be  obliged  to  say  that  this 
third  (or  is  it  fourth  ?)  modification  of  the  foundation 
of  the  "  plea  for  Revelation  "  originally  set  forth,  sat- 
isfies me  as  Httle  as  any  of  its  predecessors. 

For,  in  the  first  place,  I  cannot  accept  the  assertion 
that  this  order  is  to  be  found  in  Genesis.  With 
respect  to  No.  3,  for  example,  I  hold,  as  I  have 
already  said,  that  "  great  sea  monsters  "  includes  the 
Cetacea,  in  which  case  mammals  (which  is  what,  I 
suppose,  Mr.  Gladstone  means  by  *'  beasts  ")  come  in 
under  head  No.  3,  and  not  under  No.  5.  Again, 
"  fowl "  are  said  in  Genesis  to  be  created  on  the  same 
day  as  fishes;  therefore  I  cannot  accept  an  order 
which  makes  birds  succeed  fishes.  Once  more,  as  it 
is  quite  certain  that  the  term  "  fowl "  includes  the 
bats — for  in  Leviticus  xi,  13-19,  we  read,  "And 
these  shall  ye  have  in  abomination  among  the  fowls 
.  .  .  the  heron  after  its  kind,  and  the  hoopoe, 
and  the  bat " — it  is  obvious  that  bats  are  also  said  to 
have  been  created  at  stage  No.  3.  And  as  bats  aire 
mammals,  and  their  existence  obviously  presupposes 
that  of  terrestrial  "  beasts,"  it  is  quite  clear  that  the 
latter  could  not  have  first  appeared  as  No.  5.  I  need 
not  repeat  my  reasons  for  doubting  whether  man 
came  *'  last  of  all." 

As  the  latter  half  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  sixfold  order 
thus  shows  itself  wholly  unauthorized  by,  and  incon- 
sistent vnth,  the  plain  language  of  the  Pentateuch,  I 
might  decline  to  discuss  the  admissibility  of  its  former 
half. 

But  I  will  add  one  or  two  remarks  on  this  point 
alsa     Does  Mr.  Gladstone  mean  to  say  that  in  any  of 


the  works  he  has  cited,  or  indeed  anywhere  else,  he 
can  find  scientific  warranty  for  the  assertion  that 
there  was  a  period  of  land — by  which  I  suppose  he 
means  di-y  land  (for  submerged  land  must  needs  be 
as  old  as  the  separate  existence  of  the  sea) — "  anterior 
to  aU  life  r 

It  may  be  so,  or  it  may  not  be  so ;  but  where  is 
the  evidence  which  would  justify  anyone  in  making  a 
positive  assertion  on  the  subject  ?  What  competent 
paleontologist  will  afl&rm,  at  this  present  moment, 
that  he  knows  anything  about  the  period  at  which 
life  originated,  or  will  assert  more  than  the  extreme 
probability  that  such  origin  was  a  long  way  ante- 
cedent to  any  traces  of  life  at  present  knovm  ?  What 
physical  geologist  will  affirm  that  he  knows  when  dry 
land  began  to  exist,  or  will  say  more  than  that  it  was 
probably  very  much  earlier  than  any  extant  direct 
evidence  of  terrestrial  conditions  indicates  ? 

I  think  I  know  pretty  well  the  answers  which  the 
authorities  quoted  by  Mr.  Gladstone  would  give  to 
these  questions  ;  but  I  leave  it  to  them  to  give  them 
if  they  think  fit. 

If  I  ventured  to  speculate  on  the  matter  at  all,  I 
should  say  it  is  by  no  means  certain  that  sea  is  older 
than  dry  land,  inasmuch  as  a  soUd  terrestrial  surface 
may  very  well  have  existed  before  the  earth  was  cool 
enough  to  allow  of  the  existence  of  fluid  water.  And 
in  this  case  dry  land  may  have  existed  before  the  sea. 
As  to  the  first  appearance  of  life,  the  whole  argument 
of  analogy,  whatever  it  may  be  worth  in  such  a  case, 
is  in  favor  of  the  absence  of  Hving  beings  until  long 
after  the  hot  water  seas  had  constituted  themselves ; 
and  of  the  subsequent  appearance  of  aquatic  before 
terrestrial  forms  of  life.     But  whether  these  "  proto- 


146 


MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 


MR.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS, 


147 


plasts "  would,  if  we  could  examine  them,  be  reck- 
oned among  the  lowest  microscopic  aJgse,  or  fungi,  or 
among  those  doubtful  organisms  which  He  in  the  de- 
batable land  between  animals  and  plants,  is,  in  my 
judgment,  a  question  on  which  a  prudent  biologist 
will  reserve  his  opinion. 

I  think  that  I  have  now  disposed  of  those  parts  of 
jVIr.  Gladstone's  defense  in  which  I  seem  to  discover 
a  design  to  rescue  his  solemn  "  plea  for  Revelation." 
But  a  great  deal  of  the  *' Proem  to  Genesis  "  remains 
which  I  would  gladly  pass  over  in  silence,  were  such 
a  course  consistent  with  the  respect  due  to  so  distin- 
guished a  champion  of  the  "  reconcilers." 

I  hope  that  my  clients — the  people  of  average 
opinions — ^have  by  this  time  some  confidence  in  me ; 
for  when  I  tell  them  that,  after  all,  Mi\  Gladstone  is 
of  opinion  that  the  "  Mosaic  record "  was  meant  to 
give  moral  and  not  scientific  instruction  to  those  for 
whom  it  was  written,  they  may  be  disposed  to  think 
that  I  must  b©  misleading  them.  But  let  them  listen 
further  to  what  Mr.  Gladstone  says  in  a  compendious 
but  not  exactly  correct  statement  respecting  my 
opinions : 

He  holds  the  writer  responsible  for  scientific  precision ;  I 
look  for  nothing  of  the  kind,  but  assign  to  him  a  statement 
general,  which  admits  exceptions ;  popular,  which  aims 
mainly  at  producing  moral  impressions ;  summary,  which 
cannot  but  be  open  to  more  or  less  of  criticism  of  detail. 
He  thinks  it  is  a  lecture.    I  think  it  is  a  sermon  (p.  77). 

I  note,  incidentally,  that  Mr.  Gladstone  appears  to 
consider  that  the  differentia  between  a  lecture  and  a 
sermon  is  that  the  former,  so  far  as  it  deals  with 
matters  of  fact,  may  be  taken  seriously,  as  meaning 


^M 


exactly  what  it  says,  while  a  sermon  may  not.  I 
have  quite  enough  on  my  hands  without  taking  up 
the  cudgels  for  the  clergy,  who  will  probably  find 
Mr.  Gladstone's  definition  unflattering. 

But  I  am  diverging  from  my  proper  business, 
which  is  to  say  that  I  have  given  no  ground  for  the 
ascription  of  these  opinions,  and  that,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  I  do  not  hold  them,  and  never  have  held  them. 
It  is  Mr.  Gladstone,  and  not  I,  who  will  have  it  that 
the  Pentateuchal  cosmogony  is  to  be  taken  as  science. 

My  belief,  on  the  contrary,  is,  and  long  has  been, 
that  the  Pentateuchal  story  of  the  creation  is  simply 
a  myth.  I  suppose  it  to  be  a  hypothesis  respecting 
the  origin  of  the  universe  which  some  ancient  thinker 
foiind  himself  able  to  reconcile  with  his  knowledge, 
or  what  he  thought  was  knowledge,  of  the  nature  of 
things,  and  therefore  assumed  to  be  true.  As  such, 
I  hold  it  to  be  not  merely  an  interesting  but  a  venera- 
ble monument  of  a  stage  in  the  mental  progress  of 
mankind,  and  I  find  it  difficult  to  su^ose  that  any 
one  who  is  acquainted  with  the  cosmogonies  of  other 
nations — and  especially  with  those  of  the  Egyptians 
and  the  Babylonians,  with  whom  the  IsraeHtes  were 
in  such  frequent  and  intimate  communication — 
should  consider  it  to  possess  either  more  or  less 
scientific  importance  than  may  be  allotted  to  these. 

Mr.  Gladstone's  definition  of  a  sermon  permits  me 
to  suspect  that  he  may  not  see  much  difference  be- 
tween that  form  of  discourse  and  what  I  call  a  myth; 
and  I  hope  it  may  be  something  more  than  the  slow- 
ness of  apprehension  to  which  I  have  confessed  which 
leads  me  to  imagine  that  a  statement  which  is  "  gen- 
eral" but  " admits  exceptions,"  which  is  "popular" 
and  "  aims  mainly  at  producing  moral  impressions," 


148 


MB.    GLADSTONE   AND    QKNK8I8. 


"summary"  and  therefore  open  to  **criticiMm  of  do- 
tail,"  amounts  to  a  myth,  or  perhaps  less  than  a  myth. 
Put  algebraically,  it  comes  to  thi«:  x=a-{-lt-\-c ; 
always  remembering  that  there  in  nothing  to  nhow 
the  exact  value  of  either  a,  or  ^,  or  c.  It  ia  true  that 
a  is  commonly  supposed  to  equal  10,  but  there  are 
exceptions,  and  these  may  reduce  it  to  8,  or  8,  or  0; 
b  also  popularly  means  10,  but  bedng  chicdj  UNod  by 
the  algebraist  as  a  "  moral "  valu€i»  you  canooi  do 
much  with  it  in  the  addition  or  mibtraciion  of  malli* 
ematical  values;  c  also  is  quite  "suminary,''  afid  if 
you  go  into  the  details  of  which  it  iii  modQ  up,  maDjr 
of  them  may  be  wrong,  and  their  tram  total  oqual  to 
0,  or  oven  to  m  minuit  quantity. 

Mr.  OlndjitoDo  appcam  to  wish  tliat  I  uliould,  (1) 
«Bt6r  upon  a  i9ort  of  ctMiaj  compotitiop  with  tbe  (uitlior 
of  the  P6nta(«uclia)  oonoogony;  (2)  thai  I  should 
OMbe  a  further  BUU«m<5ut  aboai  Msno  «lenMDt4U'y 
factii  in  tho  history  of  Indian  and  Greek  philo^iphy ; 
and  ^3)  that  }  nbouid  nhoir  caoae  Icor  my  L<«iiiaiuii 
in  aooepting  tbn  aaMvtioD  that  GeaenB  is  supporiod, 
ai  any  xoio  to  tho  extent  of  tho  first  two  Teraee^  by 
the  neUilar  hypotbesiB. 

A  certain  011180  ci  humor  prfrrcoita  mo  from  aocctpt- 
ing  tho  fimt  inritatioQD.  I  would  as  soon  attczu])t  to 
put  Homlot'a  aotiloquy  into  a  more  Boieotiiio  tiLajic. 
Bat  if  I  Huppowxi  tho  '•  \foiak)  writ^"  to  bo  inspired, 
a«  Mr.  OhuLitotto  dociiy  it  would  not  be  oonaiBtent 
with  my  notions  of  retipeot  for  tho  miproma  being  to 
imagine  him  uoable  to  frame  a  form  of  woida  which 
should  accAiratefy»  or  at  least  not  inaocuiatoly,  oxpnaa 
bin  own  meaning.  It  'w  cometimes  said  that>  hod  the 
Ktatcmenta  contained  in  the  iirHt  chapter  of  QeMrifl 
bcru  seientiiically  true,  thoy  would  have  b«ai  unintel- 


MB.  0T»Aik«raxi  Asn  o 


140 


ligible  to  ignorant  pooplo;  but  bow  is  the  msitter 
mended  if^  being  iicicntiBcally  uutniev  (hej  muat 
needs  l>e  rojoct^d  by  instiuctod  people  t 

With  reupect  to  theMCond  miggcution,  it  woidd  be 
prt'sxmiptuous  in  mo  to  pretend  to  instruct  Mr.  Glad- 
btone  in  mat  tors  which  lie  as  much  within  the  prov- 
inoo  of  literature  and  Liiftory  as  in.  tha(  of  «cienoo; 
bnt  if  anyono  detfiroutt  of  further  knowlodgo  will  be 
■o  good  OS  to  turn  to  that  txioni  excdlcot  and  by  no 
means  recondite  source  of  information,  (he  EiM^rclo- 
pedia  Britannica,  bo  will  find,  under  the  letter  IC,  tho 
woffd  **  Evolnlioo/'  and  a  kmg  article  on  that  f^ubjcct 
Now,  I  do  not  rooommcnd  him  to  read  tlie  first  half 
of  tho  articio ;  but  the  seeOdkd  half,  by  my  friend  Mr. 
SuUy,  is  r«dly  very  good.  He  will  thcarc  find  it  said 
that  in  some  of  tbe  pHloaophicti  of  undent  India  the 
kleaof  evolution  in  dearly  cxprowed:  **  Brahma  w 
con<^T<>d  an  tho  ctemnl  Milf -existent  being,  wblch^ 
on  ita  material  bide,  unfolds  itself  to  tho  world  by 
giadually  condensing  i(>^f  tomaterisl  objccta  through 
tho  gmdations  of  ether,  ftre»  water,  earth,  and  other 
elements." 

And  again :  ^  In  tho  later  Ryvtom  of  emanation 
of  Sankhya  there  w  a  more  marked  approach  to 
a  BatoffidtiMtks  doctrine  of  evolution."  What  little 
knowledge  I  have  of  the  matter— chioHy  derived 
from  that  very  inutnictive  book»  **  />^e  lUUgion  of 
Buddha^  by  C.  F.  Koeppen,  wpplcmentod  by 
Hatvl}''s  interesting  works) — l<«da  mo  to  think  that 
Hr.  SaDy  might  havo  Rpokcn  much  more  etrongly  as 
to  tho  ovolntaooary  character  of  Indian  phUoeophy, 
and  cfvpodally  of  that  of  the  Buddhistei  But  tho 
quccition  is  too  huge  to  be  dealt  with  incdilnntally. 


150 


Mr.    GLADSTONE   AND   GENESIS. 


And  with  respect  to  early  Greek  philosophy*  the 
seeker  after  additional  enlightenment  need  go  no 
further  than  the  same  excellent  storehouse  of  infor- 
mation : 

The  early  Ionian  physicists,  including  Thales,  Anaximan- 
der,  and  Anaximenes,  seek  to  explain  the  world  as  generated 
out  of  a  primordial  matter  which  is  at  the  same  time  the  uni- 
versal support  of  things.  This  substance  is  endowed  with  a 
generative  or  transmutative  force  by  virtue  of  which  it  passes 
into  a  succession  of  forms.  They  thus  resemble  modern  ev- 
olutionists, since  they  regard  the  world,  with  its  infinite 
variety  of  forms,  as  issuing  from  a  simple  mode  of  matter. 

Further  on,  Mr.  Sully  remarks  that  "Heraclitus 
deserves  a  prominent  place  in  the  history  of  the  idea 
of  evolution,"  and  he  states,  with  perfect  justice,  that 
Heraclitus  has  foreshadowed  some  of  the  special  pe- 
cuHarities  of  "Mr.  Darwin's  views.  It  is  indeed  a  very 
strange  circumstance  that  the  philosophy  of  the  great 
Ephesian  more  than  adumbrates  the  two  doctrines 
which  have  played  leading  parts,  the  one  in  the  de- 
velopment of  Christian  dogma,  the  other  in  that  of 
natural  science.  The  former  is  the  conception  of  the 
Word  which  took  its  Jewish  shape  in  Alexandria,  and 
its  Christian  formf  in  that  gospel  which  is  usually 
referred  to  an  Ephesian  source  of  some  five  centu- 
ries later  date ;  and  the  latter  is  that  of  the  struggle 
for  existence.  The  saying  that  "  strife  is  father  and 
king  of  all,"  ascribed  to  HeracHtus,  would  be  a  not 
inappropriate  motto  for  the  "  Origin  of  Species." 

*I  said  nothing  about  ''the  greater  number  of  schools  of 
Greek  philosophy,"  as  Mr.  Gladstone  implies  that  I  did,  but 
expressly  spoke  of  the  "  founders  of  Greek  philosophy." 

tSee  Heinze,  Die  Lehre  vom  Logos^  p.  9,  et  seq. 


im.    GLADSTONE  AND   GENESIS. 


151 


I  hare  referred  only  to  Mi\  Sully's  article,  because 
his  authority  is  quite  sufficient  for  my  purpose.  But 
the  consultation  of  any  of  the  more  elaborate  histo- 
ries of  Greek  philosophy,  such  as  the  great  work  of 
Zeller,  for  example,  will  only  bring  out  the  same  fact 
into  still  more  striking  prominence.  I  have  professed 
no  "minute  acquaintance"  with  either  Indian  or 
Greek  philosophy,  but  I  have  taken  a  great  deal  of 
pains  to  secure  that  such  knowledge  as  I  do  possess 
shall  be  accurate  and  trustworthy. 

In  the  third  place,  Mr.  Gladstone  appears  to  wish 
that  I  should  discuss  with  him  the  question  whether 
the  nebular  hypothesis  is  or  is  not  confirmatory  of 
the  Pentateuchal  account  of  the  origin  of  things. 
Mr.  Gladstone  appears  to  be  prepared  to  enter  upon 
this  campaign  with  a  light  heart.  I  confess  I  am 
not,  and  my  reason  for  this  backwardness  will  doubt- 
less surprise  Mr.  Gladstone.  It  is  that,  rather  more 
than  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago  (namely  in  February, 
1859),  when  it  was  my  duty,  as  president  of  the  Geo- 
logical Society,  to  deliver  the  anniversary  address 
(reprinted  in  Lay  Sermons,  Addresses,  and  Beviews, 
1870),  I  chose  a  topic  which  involved  a  very  careful 
study  of  the  remarkable  cosmogonical  speculation 
originally  promulgated  by  Immanuel  Kant,  and  sub- 
sequently by  Laplace,  which  is  now  known  as  the 
nebular  hypothesis.  With  the  help  of  such  Httle 
acquaintance  with  the  principles  of  physics  and 
astronomy  as  I  had  gained,  I  endeavored  to  obtain  a 
clear  understanding  of  this  speculation  in  all  its  bear- 
ings. I  am  not  sure  that  I  succeeded ;  but  of  this  I 
am  certain,  that  the  problems  involved  are  very  diffi- 
cult, even  for  those  who  possess  the  intellectual  dis- 
cipline requisite  for  deaUng  with  them.     And  ifc  was 


152 


Km.    CHADSTONE   AND    GENESIS. 


this  conviction  that  led  me  to  express  my  desire  to 
leave  the  discussion  of  the  question  of  the  asserted 
harmony  between  Genesis  and  the  nebular  hypothesis 
to  experts  in  the  appropriate  branches  of  knowledge. 
And  I  think  my  course  was  a  wise  one  ;  but  as  Mr. 
Gladstone  evidently  does  not  understand  how  there 
can  be  any  hesitation  on  my  part,  unless  it  arises 
from  a  conviction  that  he  is  in  the  right,  I  may  go  so 
far  as  to  set  out  my  difficulties. 

They  are  of  two  kinds — exegetical  and.  scientific. 
It  appears  to  me  that  it  is  vain  to  discuss  a  supposed 
coincidence  between  Genesis  and  science,  unless  we 
have  first  settled,  on  the  one  hand,  what  Genesis 
says,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  what  science  says. 

In  the   first  place,   I  cannot  find  any  consensus 
among  Biblical  scholars  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
words,  "  In  the  beginning  God  created  the  heaven  and 
the  earth."     Some  say  that  the  Hebrew  word  hara, 
which  is  translated  "  create,"  means  "  made  out  of 
nothing."     I  venture  to  object  to  that  rendering,  not 
on  the  gi'ound  of  scholarship,  but  of  common  sense. 
Omnipotence  itself  can  surely  no  more  make  some- 
thing "  out  of  "  nothing  than  it  can  make  a  triangular 
circle.     What  is  intended  by  "made  out  of  nothing" 
appears  to  be  "  caused  to  come  into  existence,"  with 
the  impUcation  that  nothing  of  the  same  kind  pre- 
viously existed.     It  is  further  usually  assumed  that 
"  the  heaven  and  the  earth  "  means  the  material  sub- 
stance of  the  universe.     Hence  the  "  Mosaic  writer  " 
is  taken  to  imply  that  where  nothing  of  a  material 
nature  previously  existed,  this  substance  appeared. 
That  is  perfectly  conceivable,  and  therefore  no  one 
can  deny  that  it  may  have  happened.     But  there  are 
other  very  authoritative   critics  who   say   that   the 


MR.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS. 


153 


ancient  Israelite*  who  wrote  the  passage  was  not 
likely  to  have  been  capable  of  such  abstract  thinking, 
and  that,  as  a  matter  of  philology,  hara  is  commonly 
used  to  signify  the  "  fashioning,"  or  *'  forming,"  of 
that  which  already  exists.  Now  it  appears  to  me 
that  the  scientific  investigator  is  wholly  incompetent 
to  say  anything  at  all  about  the  first  origin  of  the 
material  universe.  The  whole  power  of  his  organon 
vanishes  when  he  has  to  step  beyond  the  chain  of 
natural  causes  and  effects.  No  form  of  the  nebular 
hypothesis  that  I  know  of  is  necessarily  connected 
with  any  view  of  the  origination  of  the  nebular  sub- 
stance. Kant's  form  of  it  expressly  supposes  that 
the  nebular  material  from  which  one  stellar  system 
starts  may  be  nothing  but  the  disintegrated  substance 
of  a  stellar  and  planetary  system  which  has  just  come 
to  an  end.  Therefore,  so  far  as  I  can  see,  one  who  be- 
Keves  that  matter  has  existed  from  all  eternity  has  just 
as  much  right  to  hold  the  nebular  hypothesis  as  one 
who  believes  that  matter  came  into  existence  at  a 
specified  epoch.  In  x)ther  words,-  the  nebular 
hypothesis  and  the  creation  hypothesis,  up  to  this 
point,  neither  confirm  nor  oppose  one  another. 

Next,  we  read  in  the  revisers'  version,  in  which  I 
suppose  the  ultimate  results  of  critical  scholarship  to 
be  embodied :  "  And  the  earth  was  waste  [without 
form,  in  the  authorized  version]  and  void."  Most 
people  seem  to  think  that  this  phraseology  intends 
to  imply  that  the  matter  out  of  which  the  world  was 
to  be  formed  was  a  veritable  "  chaos  "  devoid  of  law 


**♦  Ancient,"  doubtless,  but  his  antiquity  must  not  be  ex- 
aggerated.  For  example,  there  is  no  proof  that  the  **  Mo- 
saic "  cosmogony  was  known  to  the  Israelites  of  Solomon's 
time. 


154  MB.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS. 

and  order.  If  this  interpretation  is  correct,  the  neb- 
ular  hypothesis  can  have  nothing  to  say  to  it.  ine 
scientific  thinker  cannot  admit  the  absence  of  law 
and  order,  anywhere  or  any  when,  in  nature.  Some- 
times law  and  order  are  patent  and  visible  to  our 
limited  vision;  sometimes  they  are  hidden  But 
every  particle  of  the  matter  of  the  most  fantastic- 
looking  nebula  in  the  heavens  is  a  realm  of  law  and 
order  in  itself,  and  that  it  is  so  is  the  essential  condi- 
tion of  the  possibihty  of  sote  and  planetary  evolution 
from  the  apparent  chaos.* 

"Waste"  is  too  vague  a  term  to  be  worth  consid- 
eration.    "Without  form,"  intelligible  enough  as  a 
metaphor,  if  taken  literally,  is  absurd  ;  for  a  materia^ 
thing  existing  in  space  must  have  a  B^P;^fi^^^«/  f  ^ 
if  it  has  a  superficies  it  has  a  form.     The  wildest 
Btreaksof  marestail  clouds  in  the  sky,  or  the  most 
irregular  heavenly  nebula,  have  surely  just  as  much 
W  as  a  geometiical  tetrahedron  ;  and  asfor    voi^ 
how  can  that  be  void  which  is  fuU  of  matter?     As 
poetry,  these  hues  are  vivid   and  admirable;   a^  a 
scientikc  statement,  which  they  must  be  taken  to  be 
if  any  one  is  justified  in  comparing  them  with  an- 
other scientific  statement,  they  fail  to  convey  any 
inteUi£nble  conception  to  my  mmd. 

The  account  proceeds:  "And  darkness  was  upon 
the  face  of  the  deep."  So  be  it;  but  where,  then  is 
the  hkeness  to  the  celestial  nebula,  of  the  existence 
of  which  we  should  know  nothing  ^^^^.^^^^ f^^^ 
with  a  light  of  their  own?     "And  the  spint  of  God 

"";^n  Jeremiah  (iv.  23)  says,  "  I  beheld  the  earth  and, 
10,  U  was  waste  and  void,"  he  certainly  ^^^^^J-^^::^ 
ply  that  the  form  of  the  earth  was  less  defimte,  or  its  suh- 

Btance  less  solid,  than  before. 


MR.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENE3IS. 


155 


moved  upon  the  face  of  the  waters."  I  have  met  with 
no  form  of  the  nebular  hypothesis  which  involves 
anything  analogous  to  this  process. 

I  have  said  enough  to  explain  some  of  the  difficul- 
ties which  arise  in  my  mind  when  I  try  to  ascertain 
whether  there  is  any  foundation  for  the  contention 
that  the  statements  contained  in  the  first  two  verses 
of  Genesis  are  supported  by  the  nebular  hypothesis. 
The  result  does  not  appear  to  me  to  be  exactly  favor- 
able to  that  contention.     The    nebular    hypothesis 
assumes  the  existence  of  matter  having  definite  prop- 
erties as  its  foundation.     Whether  such  matter  was 
created  a  few  thousand  years  ago,  or  whether  it  has 
existed  through  an  eternal  series  of  metamorphoses 
of  which  our  present  universe  is  only  the  last  stage, 
are    altemativs,   neither   of   which    is    scientifically 
untenable,  and    neither   scientifically  demonstrable. 
But  science  knows  nothing  of  any  stage  in  which 
the   universe  could    be  said,  in  other   than  a  met- 
aphorical and  popular  sense,  to  be  formless  or  empty, 
or  in  any  respect  less  the  seat  of  law  and  order 
than  it  is  now.     One  might  as  well  talk  of  a  fresh- 
laid  hen's  egg  being  "  without  form  and  void,"  be- 
cause the  chick  therein  is  potential  and  not  actual,  as 
apply  such  terms  to  the  nebulous  mass  which  con- 
tains a  potential  solar  system. 

Until  some  further  enlightenment  comes  to  me, 
then,  I  confess  myself  wholly  unable  to  understand 
the  way  in  which  the  nebular  hypothesis  is  to  be  con- 
•  verted  into  an  ally  of  the  "Mosaic  writer."* 


*In  looking  through  the  delightful  volume  recently  pub- 
lished by  the  Astronomer  Royal  for  Ireland,  a  day  or  two 
ago,  I  find  the  following  remarks  on  the  nebular  hypothesis, 


156 


MR.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS. 


But  Mr.  Gladstone  informs  us  that  Professor  Dana 
and  Professor  Guyot  are  prepared  to  prove  that  the 
"first  or  cosmogonical  portion  of  the  Proem  not  only 
accords  with,  but  teaches,  the  nebular  hypothesis." 
There  is  no  one  to  whose  authority  on  geological 
questions  I  am  more  readily  disposed  to  bow  than 
that  of  my  eminent  friend  Professor  Dana.  But  I 
am  familiar  with  what  he  has  previously  said  on  this 
topic  in  his  well-known  and  standard  work,  into 
which,  strangely  enough,  it  does  not  seem  to  have 
occurred  to  Mr.  Gladstone  to  look  before  he  set  out 
upon  his  present  undertaking;  and  unless  Professor 
Dana's  latest  contribution  (which  I  have  not  yet  met 
with)  takes  up  altogether  new  ground,  I  am  afraid  I 
shall  not  be  able  to  extricate  myself,  by  its  help,  fi'om 
my  present  difficulties. 

It  is  a  very  long  time  since  I  began  to  think  about 
the  relations  between  modem  scientifically  ascertained 
truths  and    the  cosmogonical  speculations '  of    the 


which  I  should  have  been  glad  to  quote  in  my  text  if  I  had 
known  them  sooner : 

*'  Nor  can  it  be  ever  more  then  a  speculation ;  it  cannot  be 
established  by  observation,  nor  can  it  be  proved  by  calcula- 
tion. It  is  merely  a  conjecture,  more  or  less  plausible,  but 
perhaps,  in  some  degree,  necessarily  true,  if  our  present  laws 
rf  heat,  as  we  understand  them,  admit  of  the  extreme  appli- 
cation  here  required,  and  if  the  present  order  of  things  has 
reigned  for  sufficient  time  without  the  intervention  of  any 
influence  at  present  known  to  us"  (The  Story  of  the  Heavens, 
p.  606). 

Would  any  prudent  advocate  base  a  plea,  either  for  or 
against  revelation,  upon  the  coincidence,  or  want  of  coin- 
cidence, of  the  declarations  of  the  latter  with  the  require- 
ments of  a  hypothesis  thus  guardedly  dealt  with  by  an  astro- 
nomical expert? 


MB.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS. 


167 


writer  of  Genesis;  and,  as  I  think  that  Mr.  Gladstone 
might  have  been  able  to  put  his  case  with  a  good  deal 
more  force  if  he  had  thought  it  worth  while  to  con- 
sult the  last  chapter  of  Professor  Dana's  admirable 
"Manual  of  Geology,"  so  I  think  he  might  have  been 
made  aware  that  he  was  undertaking  an  enterprise  of 
which  he  had  not  counted  the  cost  if  he  had  chanced 
upon  a  discussion  of  the  subject  which  I  pubhshed 
in  1877.* 

Finally,  I  should  like  to  draw  the  attention  of 
those  who  take  interest  in  these  topics  to  the  weighty 
words  of  one  of  the  most  learned  and  moderate  of 
BibHcal  critics: 

A  propos  de  cette  premiere  page  de  la  Bible,  on  a  coutume 
de  nos  jours  de  disserter,  k  perte  de  vue,  sur  I'accord  du  r^cit 
mosaique  avec  les  sciences  naturelles;  et  comme  celles-ci, 
tout  dloigndes  qu'elles  sont  encore  de  la  perfection  absolue 
ont  rendu  populaires  et  en  quelque  sorte  irre'fragables  un 
certain  nombre  de  faits  gJnereaux  ou  de  theses  fondamen- 
tales  de  la  cosmologie  et  de  la  geologic,  c'est  le  texte  sacrd 
qu  on  s'^vertue  ^  torturer  pour  le  faire  concorder  avec  ces 
donn^es  (Reuss,  L'Histoire  Sainte  et  la  Loi,  i,  275).t 

^^Inmy  paper  on  "  The  Interpreters  of  Genesis  and 

♦Lectures  on  Evolution  delivered  in  New  York.     CAmeri 
can  Addresses.) 

tTRAN8LATioN.-In  reference  to  this  first  page  of  the  Bible 
It  has  become  now  the  custom  to  discuss  it  copiously  from 
the  wrong  standpoint,  or  at  random,  on  the  agreement  or 
harmony  of  the  Mosaic  record  with  the  natural  sciences ;  and 
as  these,  far  removed  as  they  may  yet  be  from  absolute  per- 
fection,  have  undoubtedly  rendered  popular  and  in  a  degree 
iirefutable  a  certain  number  of  general  facts  or  fundamental 
theses  relatmg  to  cosmology  and  geology,  the  sacred  text  is 
stramed  and  twisted  in  order  to  make  it  agree  with  these  ad- 
mitted facts,  ■ 


158 


MR.    GLADSTONE   AND    GENESIS. 


the  Interpreters  of   Nature,"    while  freely  availing 
myself  of  the  rights  of  a  scientific  critic,  I  endeavored 
to  keep  the  expression  of  my  views  well  within  those 
bounds  of  courtesy  which  are  set  by  self-respect  and 
consideration  for  others.     I  am  therefore  glad  to  be 
favored  with  Mr.  Gladstone's  acknowledgment  of  the 
success  of  my  efforts.     I  only  wish  that  I  could  ac- 
cept all  the  products  of  Mr.   Gladstone's  gracious 
appreciation,  but  there  is  one  about  which,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  honesty,  I  hesitate.     In  fact,  if  I  had  expressed 
my  meaning  better  than  I  seem  to  have  done,  I  doubt 
if  this  particular  proffer  of  Mr.  Gladstone's  thanks 
would  have  been  made. 

To  my  mind,  whatever  doctrine  professes  to  be  the 
result  of   the  apphcation  of   the  accepted   rules  of 
inductive  and  deductive  logic  to  its  subject-matter, 
and  accepts,  within  the  limits  which  it  sets  to  itself, 
the  supremacy  of  reason,  is  Science.     Whether  the 
subject-matter  consists   of    realities  or  unreaUties, 
truths  or  falsehoods,  is  quite  another  question.     I 
conceive  that  ordinary  geometry  is  science,  by  reason 
of  its  method,  and  I  also  beheve  that  its  axioms,  def- 
initions,   and    conclusions   are  all    true.     However, 
there  is  a  geometry  of  four  dimensions,  which  I  also 
beheve  to  be  science,  because  its  method  professes  to 
be  strictly  scientific.     It  is  true  that  I  cannot  con- 
ceive four  dimensions  in  space,  and  therefore,  for  me, 
the  whole  affair  is  unreal.     But  I  have  known  men  of 
great  intellectual  powers  who  seemed  to  have  no  dif- 
gculty  either  in  conceiving  them,  or  at  any  rate  in 
imagining  how  they  could  conceive  them,  and  there- 
fore  four-dimensioned   geometry  comes   under  my 
notion  of  science. 

So  I  think  astrology  is  a  science,  in  so  far  as  it  pro- 


MB.  GLADSTONE  AND  GENESIS. 


159 


fesses  to  reason  logically  from  principles  estabHshed 
by  just  inductive  methods.      To  prevent  misunder- 
standing, perhaps  I  had  better  add  that  I  do  not 
beheve  one  whit  in  astrology ;    but  no  more  do  I  be- 
heve in  Ptolemaic  astronomy,  or  in  the  catastrophic 
geology  of  my  youth,  although  these,  in  their  day, 
claimed— and,  to  my  mind,  rightly  claimed— the  name 
of  science.     If  nothing  is  to  be  called  science  but 
that  which  is  exactly  true  from  beginning  to  end,  I 
am  afraid  there  is  very  httle  science  in  the  world  out- 
side mathematics.     Among  the  physical  sciences  I  do 
not  know  that  any  could  claim  more  than  that  each 
is  true  within  certain  limits,  so  narrow  that,  for  the 
present,  at  any  rate,  they  may  be  neglected.     If  such 
is  the  case,  I  do  not  see  where  the  Hne  is  to  be  drawn 
between  exactly  true,  partiaUy  true,  and  mainly  un- 
true forms  of  science.     And  what  I  have  said  about 
the  current  theology  at  the  end  of  my  paper  leaves,  I 
think,  no  doubt  as  to  the  category  in  which  I  rank  \t 
For  all  that,  I  think  it  would  be  not  only  unjust,  but 
almost  impertinent,  to  refuse  the  name  of  science  to 
the  "  Summa  "  of  St.  Thomas  or  to  the  "  Institutes  " 
of  Calvin. 


In  conclusion,  I  confess  that  my  supposed  "un- 
jad^  appetite"  for  the  sort  of  controversy  in  which 
it  needed  not  ]VIr.  Gladstone's  express  declaration  to 
teU  us  he  is  far  better  practised  than  I  am  (though 
probably,  without  another  express  declaration,  no 
one  would  have  suspected  that  his  controversial  fires 
are  burning  low)  is  already  satiated. 

In  "  Elysium  "  we  conduct  scientific  discussions  in 
a  different  medium,  and  we  are  hable  to  threatenings 
of  asphyxia  in  that  "atmosphere  of  contention "  in 


160 


MR.    GLADSTONE    AND    GENESISL 


wliich  Mr.  Gladstone  has  been  able  to  live,  alert  and 
vigorous  beyond  the  common  race  of  men,  as  if  it 
were  purest  mountain  air.  I  trust  that  he  may  long 
continue  to  seek  truth,  under  the  difficult  conditions 
he  has  chosen  for  the  search,  with  unabated  energy — 
I  had  almost  said  fire  : 

May  age  not  wither  him,  nor  custom  stale 
His  infinite  variety. 

But  Elysium  suits  my  less  robust  constitution 
better,  and  I  beg  leave  to  retire  thither,  not  sorry  for 
my  experience  of  the  other  region — ^no  one  should 
regret  experience — but  determined  not  to  repeat  it, 
at  any  rate  in  reference  to  the  "plea  for  Revelation." 

T.  H.  Huxley. 


A    PROTEST    AN-D    A    PLEA. 

BY   MRS.    E.    LYNN   LINTON, 

In  the  Mneteenth  Century  of  last  November  Mr. 
Gladstone  pubHshed  a  remarkable  ai'ticle,  wliich  has 
ah-eady  received  two  answers.     Professor  Huxley  has 
dealt  with  its  science,  Professor  Max  Mailer  with  its 
mythology  and  etymology ;    and  even  the  "  Ulysses 
of  dialectics  "  will,  I  think,  find  it  hai^d  to  reply  to  or 
refute  either  the  one  or  the  other.     This  protest  of 
nune  is  founded  on  a  much  smaller  point,  but  one  on 
which  I  am  entitled  to  speak,  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Glad- 
stone did  me  the  honor  to  allude  to  me  directly  and 
by  quotation,  though  not  by  name. 

The  phrase  to  which  I  object  occurs  in  a  pai'a^aph 
which  expresses  surprise  "  not  only  at  the  fact,  but " 
at  the  maimer  in  which  in  this  day,  wiiters,  whose 
name  is  legion,  unimpeached  in  chai'acter  and  abound- 
ing in  taJent,  not  only  put  away  from  them,  cast  into 
shadow  or  into  the  very  gull  of  negation  itself,  the 
conception  of  a  deity,  an  acting  and  ruHng  deity.    Of 
this  beHef,  which  has  satisfied  the  doubts,  and  wiped 
away  the  tears,  and  found  guidance  for  the  footsteps 
of  so  many  a  weary  wanderer  on  earth,  which  among 
the  best  and  greatest  of  our  race  has  been  so  cher^ 
ished  by  those  who  had  it,  and  so  longed  and  sought 
for  by  those  who  had  it  not,  we  might  suppose  that 
if  at  length  we  had  discovered  that  it  was  in  the  Hght 
of  truth  untenable,  that  the  accumulated  testimony  of 
man  was  worthless,  and  that  his  wisdom  was  but 


162 


A   PROTEST   AND   A   PLEA. 


folly,  yet  at  least  the  decencies  of  mourning  would  be 
vouchsafed  to  this  irreparable  loss.  Instead  of  this, 
it  is  with  a  joy  and  exultation  that  might  almost  re- 
call  the  frantic  orgies  of  the  Commune  that  this,  at 
least  at  first  sight,  terrific  and  overwhelming  calamity 
is  accepted  and  recorded  as  a  gain."  (The  italics  are 
my  own.) 

The  phrase  is  cruel,  misdirecting,  unjust.  As  rev- 
erently as  those  who  believe  that  the  Bible  is  the 
word  of  God — the  ipsissima  verba — and  the  church 
of  Christ  the  sole  ark  of  salvation,  do  we,  who  doubt 
of  both,  worship  the  truth  and  stretch  out  our  hands 
to  the  light.  If  we  think  that  such  religions  as  the 
world  has  hitherto  seen  have  been  subjective  and  not 
given  from  without — self -generated  and  not  re- 
vealed— it  is  not  because  we  are  indifferent  to  the 
religious  idea,  not  because  we  want  to  get  rid  of  a 
restraining  moral  influence,  nor  yet  because  we  de- 
spise the  consolations  of  faith  and  the  peace  which 
follows  prayer.  It  is  simply  because  certain  things, 
integral  to  those  revelations,  cannot  stand  the  test  of 
scientific  truth,  and  fall  to  pieces  under  the  touch  of 
reason.  And  what  is  this  joy,  this  exultation,  to 
which  Mr.  Gladstone  assigns  so  shameful  a  parallel- 
ism ?  Is  it  in  our  sense  of  freedom,  through  our 
deliverance  from  the  cruel  superstitions  which  have 
overwhelmed  brave  men  with  abject  terror,  reduced 
feeble  minds  to  imbecility  and  inflamed  ardent  ones 
to  madness — which  have  ruined  the  happiness  of 
multitudes,  destroyed  innumerable  Hves,  and  put  in- 
struments of  torture  into  the  hands  of  fanatics  where- 
with to  oppress  their  victims,  till  the  hell  they 
preached  was  translated  to  earth,  and  the  devil  they 
painted  was  embodied  in  their  own  persons  ?    Musi 


A    PROTEST    A»T)    A    PLEA. 


163 


we  bury  that  devil  with  the  "  decencies  of  mourning," 
and  hang  up  wreaths  of  parsley  and  crowns  of  im- 
mortelles on  the  closed  gates  of  hell?    Yet  neither 
the  one  nor  the  other  is  to  be  extricated  from  the 
correlative  ideas  of  God  and  heaven  as  given  to  us  by 
the  Bible  and  the  Christian  churches.     What  is  our 
exultation  ?     To  feel  that  we  are  men,  surrounded  by 
unfathomable  mysteries,   but    free    from   the  fears 
which  desolate  and  degrade — to  feel  that  we  can  look 
up  to  heaven  above  unabashed  if  questioning — that 
we  are  one  with  the  nature  we  do  not  yet  understand, 
but  part  of  the  whole,  and  not  ruled  off  to  a  special 
destiny  of    eternal   torment — to    have    broken  our 
ghastly  idol,  the  Moloch  of  our  sorrow,  bloodstained 
and  tear-bedewed,  and  to  have  enshrined  in  its  place 
Infinity  and  Law — this  is  our  joy,  deep,  solemn,  self- 
respecting,  abiding;  and  we  would  that  aU  humanity 
shared  it.     But  to  question  the  objective  truth  of 
the  anthropomorphic  religions  accepted  by  man  as 
revelations,  and  to  have  cast  from  us  the  hideous 
superstitions  bound  up  with  them,  is '  not  to  repeat 
the  "  frantic  orgies  of  the  Commune." 

The  theory  of  direct  revelation  creates  a  dilemma 
from  which  I  see  no  escape.  Either  it  is  necessary 
for  the  spiritual  well-being  of  man  that  truths  taught 
by  God  himself  should  be  known  and  beheved,  or  it 
is  not.  If  the  former,  then  we  are  landed  in  the 
mystery  of  Partiahty  and  the  Favored  Nation ;  with 
the  corollary  of  injustice  to  those  excluded  for  no 
fault  of  their  own — ^by  the  mere  accident  of  their 
birth  deprived  of  benefits  essential  to  their  eternal 
happiness.  If  the  latter,  then  it  seems  scarcely  worth 
the  trouble  for  Omnipotence  to  have  deHvered  a  mes- 
sage in  the  tremendous  form  assumed  by  Christians, 


164  A   PROTEST    AND   A    PLEA. 

if  the  fate  of  tlie  excluded  is  not  touched  thereby, 
and  everything  is  made  pleasant  at  last  for  every  one 
all  round.  If  we  accept  the  theory  of  a  Unified 
Truth  delivered  by  diiect  revelation,  we  are  forced 
into  the  position  occupied  by  Roman  Catholics  and 
Mohammedans — that  is,  the  exclusion  of  unbelievers 
from  the  privileges  promised  to  the  faithful — and  the 
consequent  injustice  of  the  divine  being,  who  favors 
some  and  disinherits  others,  irrespective  of  personal 
merits  and  for  motives  of  pure  caprice. 

Better  than  a  divine  soui'ce  seems  to  me  the  purely 
human  origin  of  this  belief  in  a  specialized  and  par- 
tial revelation,  and  how  it  is  the  translation  into 
religion  of  that  passionate  patriotism  which  makes  its 
own  tribe,  race,  nation,  the  finest  in  the  world,  the 
preservation  and  supremacy  of  which  is  of  the  first 
importance.  It  is  no  other  than  the  egotism  which 
is  necessary  for  self-preservation,  but  which  cannot 
bear  the  test  of  reason  exterior  to  itself.  Standing 
apart  fi'om  all,  and  impartial  to  all,  we  can  judge  bet- 
ter than  when  we  are  face  to  face  with  one  alone.  And 
standing  apart,  judging  for  the  whole  human  race 
and  on  the  broad  grounds  of  equal  justice,  we  see 
how  infinitely  unjust  would  be  any  partial  revela- 
tion— any  creation  of  a  favored  nation  which  should 
exclude  from  pai'ticipation  in  its  benefits  the  innocent 
disinherited.  If  we  find  joy,  too,  in  this  deUverance 
from  the  injustice  involved  in  partial,  local,  and  racial 
revelations — revelations  made  to  some  and  withheld 
from  others — it  is  because  we  open  the  doors  of  truth 
to  all  humanity  alike — making  it  general  and  not 
special — because  we  think  oui'  spmtual  democracy  a 
nobler  thing  than  the  creation  of  an  aristocracy 
among  souls,  where  inherited  beUef  in  Christ,  Mo- 


A   PROTEST   AKD   A   PLfiA. 


1G5 


hammed,  Jehovah,  or  Vishntl  confers  celestial  rank 
and  eternal  privileges,  denied  to  the  excluded.  But 
to  see  only  the  mind  of  man  in  concrete  religious  sys- 
tems is  not  to  deny  nor  to  despise  the  religious 
idea — the  instinct  of  reverence  for  the  Highest 
Ideal — the  worship  which  is  inspired  by  the  sense  of 
Infinity— the  confession  of  that  Something  beyond 
ourselves  and  our  knowledge,  which  some  men  call 
God,  and  others  the  Unknowable,  and  others,  again, 
the  Law  of  Righteousness  by  which  we  are  gov- 
erned and  to  which  we  strive  to  attain. 

The  very  fact  that  there  are  more  reHgions  than 
one  in  the  world,  and  that  each  consoles  and  sustains 
its  worshiper,   surely  of  itseK  proves  the  subjective 
quality  of  creeds.     Who  can  deny  the  power  which 
behef  in  the  gods  of  Olympus  had  on  men  ?     When 
wild  thoughts  and  tumultuous  desires  disturbed  the 
Greek  girl's  heart,  did  she  derive  no  calming  spiritual 
influence  when  she  fled  to  the  altar  of  Artemis  and 
laid  her  offerings  before  the  goddess,  beseeching  her 
divine  support  ?     Where  was  the  difference  between 
her  prayer  and  that  of  her  younger  sister  who  kneels 
before  the  shrine  of  the  Vii'gin  to-day,  or  tm-ns  in 
fear  of  herself  to  her  patron   saint,  her  guardian 
angel,  asking  each  to  defend  her  from  sinful  thoughts  1 
Was  the  story  of  Actaeon,  slain  for  his  presumptuous 
intrusion  on  divine  privacy,  less  real  to  the  Greek 
than  is  to  the  Jew  that  of  the  fifty  thousand  and 
three  score  and  ten  men  of  Beth-shemesh,  smitten  be- 
cause they  had  looked  into  the  Aik  of  the  Lord  ? 
^Tien  women,  in  their  hour  of  trial,  cried  out  to 
Lucina,  was   it   with  a   different   feeling  from  that 
which  makes  the  Sicilian  invoke  the  aid  of  la  Madonna 
della  Catena?     Was  the  mystery  of  the  bii'th   of 


166 


A  I>BOT£ST  AKB  A   PLEA. 


Dionysos  more  incredible  than  that  of  the  Miraculous 
Conception,  or  the  avatar  of  Crishna  ?     Like  our  own 
Divine  Triad,  unseen  by  excess  of  light,  hidden  be- 
hind  the  clouds,   veiled  in   the   summer   sunshine, 
heard  in  the  tempest,  and  present  in  the  darkness  of 
the  night,  ever  unseen  but  ever  there,  the  gods  of 
Olympus  drew  in  council  together  and  watched  over 
the  affairs  of  the  men  they  had  made.    And  the  pious 
beheved  what  they  did  not  see,  and  worshiped  by 
faith,  not  knowledge.     When  some  bold  skeptic  de- 
nying possibility,  or  ardent  believer  seeking  to  realize 
his   faith,  chmbed   to   the  top  of  the  Sacred  Hill, 
searching  for  proof,  what  did  he  find?     Was  there 
but  one  feather  of  eagle  or  of  dove,  of  peacock  or  of 
owl,  to  attest  the  truth  of  the  greater  by  the  evidence 
of  the  less  ? — one  solitary  stain  of  the  old  gray  stone, 
swept  by  the  wind  and  bleached  by  the  snow,  which 
showed  where  the  nectar  had  fallen  from  Hebe's  cup 
or  Ganymede's  unpracticed  hand?— one  spangle  of 
gold  from  the  girdle  worn  by  the  "  Most  Beautiful?" 
Was  there  one  smallest  material  proof  of  the  existence 
of  those  Divine  Twelve,  to  whom  so  many  temples 
had  been  raised,  so  many  prayers  addressed  ?     Do 
we  believe  their  objective  existence  now  ?  and  have 
we  buried  them  with  the  "decencies  of  mourning?" 
WTiat  to  us  is  that  vision  of  Athene  which  inspired 
the  artist  and  cheered  the  faint  and  feeble  ? — ^what  the 
worth  of  those  processions  and  prayers,  those  offer- 
ings and  sacrifices,  which  then  were  held  all-powerful 
to  avei*t  war  or  secure  victory,  to  give  good  crops  to 
the  land  and  bring  divine  favor  to  the  devout  ?  What 
to  us  are  those  divine  advocacies  or  enmities  in  which 
Achaian  and  Trojan  so  imphcitly  trusted  ?     Do  we 
believe  in  the  visit  of  Jove  and  Mercury  to  Baucis 


A  fEOTESTJ  And  a  plea. 


167 


and  Philemon — even  those  of  us  who  accept  as  divine 
the  stories  in  the  Bible  of  how  God  and  his  angels 
came  down  to  visit  Adam  and  Eve,  Abram  and  Sara, 
Moses  and  Mary  ?  Where  are  the  satyrs  who  fright- 
ened the  nymphs  in  the  woods,  and  the  fauns  who 
linked  the  himian  ynih  the  brute  ?  Where  are  the 
rude  gods  of  the  river,  fathers  of  men  ? — the  Eimien- 
ides  and  Ate,  Styx  and  Cerberus  ?  Do  we  not  now 
confess  their  phantasmal,  subjective,  self- generated 
existence  ?  Do  we  not  say :  "  These  things  never 
were,  but  were  only  thought  to  be  ?  "  Yet  one  of  the 
charges  which  cost  Socrates  his  life  was  that  he  de- 
spised the  tutelary  deities  of  the  state,  putting  in 
their  place  another  divinity/  which  was  as  if  a 
medieval  Spaniard  should  have  denied  the  actual 
appearance  of  Saint  Jago  at  the  battle  of  Clavijo ;  or 
his  brother  monks  have  questioned  the  holy  visitation 
to  Fra  Angelico ;  or  as  when  some  modem  thinker 
stands  apart  from  the  anthropomorphism  of  the  Chris- 
tian creed,  doubts  direct  revelation,  and  questions 
the  divine  authorship  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis, 
in  favor  of  unchangeable  law  and  progressive  im- 
provement in  knowledge,  brain-power,  and  cosmic 
conceptions. 

Admit  the  theory  of  an  Omnipotent  Artificer  out- 
side Law — of  an  Author  of  Creation  who  could  Jiave 
made  all  things  differently  if  he  would — and  we  are 
caught  in  a  network  of  contradictions  from  which 
there  is  no  possibihty  of  freeing  ourselves.  Where 
do  we  find  the  benevolence  of  that  acting  and  ruling 
deity,  belief  in  whom  has,  truly  enough,  "  satisfied 
the  doubts,  wiped  away  the  tears,  and  found  guidance 
for  the  footsteps  of  so  many  a  weary  wanderer  on 
the  earth  ?  "    Not  in  nature,  of  which  man  is  but  one 


168 


A    PEOTEST   AND   A    PLEA. 


manifestation  among    the   countless  millions.      All 
through  nature  we  find  pain  and  strife  and  death  as 
the  charter  of  existence.     The  weak  are  the  prey  of 
the  stiong,  and  hfe  must  incessantly  be  sacrificed 
that  life  may  continue  to  exist.     We  make  great 
account  of   our  own  pains,  and  put  up  prayers  in 
churches   when  certain  microscopic  organisms  have 
taken  possession  of  us,  and  ai'e  rapidly  destroying 
our  vitality;    but  who  prays  Omnipotence  for  the 
small  crab  held  down  by  the  big  one,  and  slowly 
picked   to   death  by  those   ruthless  pincers  tearing 
fragment  after  fragment  from  the  quivering  flesh  be- 
neath   the    shell?     What    feebler-winged    creature 
invokes  supernatural  aid  against  the  tenible  dragon- 
fly, the  murderous  wasp,  bearing   down  on  it  for 
destruction?     Look  at  the  spider,  the  vulture,  the 
tiger,  the  cannibal,  and  the  tyrant  among  men.     Ai'e 
they  not  all  parts  of  one  great  whole — integral  to 
creation  as  it  is — different  manifestations  of  the  same 
law  ?    But  if  not  the  result  of  law,  working  inexor-' 
ably  and  automatically  from  its  own  center,  then  are 
they  the  deliberate  work  of  an  independent  creator, 
who  might  have  done  differently  and  more  mercifully 
if  he  would.     In  which  theory  hes  the  most  reasona- 
bleness and  the  most  humihty?— in  that  which  con- 
fesses  ignorance   of  the  causa  causans,  or  in  that 
which  creates  unanswerable  contradictions  because  of 
its  declaration  of  knowledge,  and  its  ascription  of 
pain,  misery,  and  death  to  the  will  of  a  beneficent 
deity  and  an  omnipotent  and  all- wise  father  ? 

If  there  be  any  truth  in  science  at  all,  and  astron- 
omy, geology,  chemistry,  biology  are  not  so  many 
delusions  of  the  senses,  there  was  a  time  when  our 
ancestor— v>  horn,  for  want  of  a  better  term,  we  call 


A    PROTEST   AND   A   PLEA. 


169 


Primitive  Man— was  removed  from  the  brute  only  in- 
somuch as  he  had  a  more  erect  caniage,  a  little  bigger 
brain,  ajid  more  completely  differentiated  members. 
Of  religion,  morality,  decency,  pity,  social  law,  patriot- 
ism,  he    understood    no    more    than  the  ape,   his 
brother.     He  was  as  much  outside  the  pale  of  the 
moral  law  as  the  spider  or  the  vulture.     In  his  mm-- 
ders,  his  cannibalism,  his  bestialities  was  no  sin,  be- 
cause there  was   no   knowledge.     He  was  simply  a 
brute,  inclosing  in  himself  potentiaHties  of  future  de- 
velopment.    The  product  of  the  law  of  evolution,  he 
had  within  him  the  power  of  evolution.     By  slow 
degrees  his  brain  grew  and  his  thoughts  ripened.   He 
learnt  the  value  of  fixed  laws  for  government,  and 
the  consequent  need  of  obedience,  with  punishment 
for  infraction.     He  developed  a  conscience,  and  he 
developed  morahty;  and  among  his  moral  qualities 
He  developed  pity  for  suffering.     Fear  of  the  pitiless 
elements,  of  the  ferocity  of  wild  beasts,  ignorance  of 
causes  aud  consequent  fear  of  results,  together  with 
dreams,  sickness    and  death,  had  akeady  created  an 
Elemental   God.      When  the  social   conscience  was 
born,  the  creation  of  a  Moral  God,  the  pitiful  helper 
of  man,  followed  as  of  necessity— by  the  same  law  as 
that  which  created  the  elemental  deity,  and  made  vis- 
ible fetishes  of  stones  and  trees,  prefacing  the  graven 
images  and  painted  idols.    Imperfect  social  conditions 
necessitated  a  Court  of  Ultimate  Appeal.     The  man 
oppressed  here  by  his  stronger  superior,  and  helpless 
in  a  state  of  society  where  might  was  right  and  law 
was  not  justice,  needed   some   one   to  redress  his 
wrongs— if  not  now  nor  here,  yet  in  the  future— the 
beyond.  The  tyranny  of  the  potent  kings  must  be  pun- 
ished by  the  wrath  of  the  one  omnipotent ;  the  suffej-- 


170 


A  PBOTEST  AND  A   PLEA. 


ings  of  the  innocent  and  helpless  must  be  avenged 
by  the  eternal  ruler  who  holds  the  scales  and  metes 
out  justice.  But  our  God  was,  and  is,  the  transcript 
of  our  social  condition — the  measure  of  our  knowl- 
edge. The  social  and  personal  wrongs  of  which  we 
make  so  much  account  are  but  the  translation  into 
human  action  of  the  material  sufferings  pervading  all 
animate  creation.  Why  must  a  man  be  eternally  com- 
pensated for  a  cruel  and  untimely  death,  or  for  the 
loss  of  his  worldly  goods  and  gear,  while  the  worm, 
prdled  asimder  by  two  blackbirds  or  slowly  devoured 
by  flies — which  tried  Frederick  Kobertson's  faith  so 
sharply — the  smaller  lobster,  which  is  ejected  from 
its  safe  hiding-place  among  the  rocks  and  thrown  out 
into  the  waste  of  the  sea  to  perish  by  its  enemies,  is 
but  fulfilling  its  appointed  destiny,  without  which  life 
would  not  exist  at  all  ?  This  necessity  for  a  Court  of 
Ultimate  Appeal  and  a  righteous  Judge  who  shall 
compensate  those  who  have  been  afflicted  here,  while 
punishing  the  oppressors,  seems  to  me  no  more  a 
necessity  when  life  is  over  than  compensation  for  the 
worm  or  the  lobster.  Each  is  the  same  thing,  differ- 
entiated by  circumstances  and  conditions — the  homo- 
geneity of  nature  and  the  invariability  of  the  universal 
law  being  surely  among  the  firpt  lessons  to  be  learned 
by  those  who  dare  to  think. 

Better  and  truer  than  the  individual  consolations 
of  eternity  are  the  general  ameliorations  wrought  in 
time.  By  the  law  of  evolution  which  rules  society — 
the  expression  of  man's  mind — ^just  as  it  rules  the 
translation  of  organisms,  wrong  and  injustice  create 
better  laws  when  the  human  brain  has  advanced  to 
the  point  when  it  can  understand  that  injustice  and 
shape  a  nobler  ideal     The  world,  which  in  its  bar- 


A   PEOTEST   AND   A   PLEA. 


171 


barous  nonage  prostrates  itself  at  the  feet  of  crowned 
robbers  covetous  of  their  neighbors'  vineyards — of 
royal  murderers  setting  obstructive  husbands  in  the 
front  of  the  battle  that  the  wives  may  be  possessed 
in  peace — in  its  manhood  sees  the  greater  good  of 
equal  justice  to  all,  and  preaches  the  nobler  law  of 
rights  and  duties  as  against  that  of  submission  and 
privileges.  The  specialized  inheritance  of  the  few 
enlarges  itself  into  the  generous  democracy  of  Christ, 
which  swept  down  the  barriers  of  the  court  and  rent 
the  veil  of  the  temple.  The  Favored  Nation  was 
called  on  to  share;  the  aristocrats  of  heaven  had  to 
enlarge  their  borders,  and  the  Elect  to  add  new 
thrones  to  their  number.  But  as  presbyter,  once  a 
liberal  protest,  grew  to  be  only  "old  priest  writ 
large,"  so  Christianity,  which  was  in  the  beginning 
as  wide  as  humanity,  by  the  law  of  consoHdation  and 
contraction  working  in  things  spiritual  as  well  as 
material,  has  become  as  close  a  guild  and  as  exclusive 
a  sect  as  the  Judaism  it  was  pledged  to  displace.  By 
the  dogma  of  a  Unified  Truth,  of  a  divine  and  direct 
revelation,  giving  privileges  to  those  who  beheve  and 
entailing  loss  on  those  who  are  excluded,  the  Savior, 
whose  salvation  was  in  his  universaUty,  has  been  nar- 
rowed into  a  sectarian  deity,  like  Jehovah,  like  Allah, 
like  Vishnti.  It  is  the  Agnostic  who  now  takes  up 
this  lapsed  creed  of  universaUty — who  preaches 
afresh  the  democracy  of  souls — who,  in  his  behef  that 
the  religious  idea  is  one  to  be  improved  and  finally 
perfected  by  evolution  and  knowledge,  sees  the  true 
salvation  of  men  and  their  final  redemption  from 
error.  In  this  behef  He  his  hope  for  the  future  and 
his  patience  with  the  present.  He  trusts  to  time  to 
carry  on  the  work  of  mental  enlargement,  as  it  has 


170 


A  PROTEST  AND  A  PLEA. 


A  PE0TE8T  AND  A  PLEA. 


171 


ings  of  the  innocent  and  helpless  must  be  avenged 
by  the  eternal  ruler  who  holds  the  scales  and  metes 
out  justice.     But  our  God  was,  and  is,  the  transcript 
of  our  social  condition — the  measure  of  our  knowl- 
edge.    The  social  and  personal  wrongs  of  which  we 
make  so  much  account  are  but  the  translation  into 
human  action  of  the  material  sufferings  pervading  all 
animate  creation.  Why  must  a  man  be  eternally  com- 
pensated for  a  cruel  and  imtimely  death,  or  for  the 
loss  of  his  worldly  goods  and  gear,  while  the  worm, 
pulled  asunder  by  two  blackbirds  or  slowly  devoured 
by  flies— which  tried  Frederick  Robertson's  faith  so 
sharply — the  smaller  lobster,  which  is  ejected  from 
its  safe  hiding-place  among  the  rocks  and  thrown  out 
into  the  waste  of  the  sea  to  perish  by  its  enemies,  is 
but  fulfilling  its  appointed  destmy,  without  which  life 
would  not  exist  at  all  ?    This  necessity  for  a  Court  of 
Ultimate  Appeal  and  a  righteous  Judge  who  shall 
compensate  those  who  have  been  afl^cted  here,  while 
punishing  the  oppressors,  seems  to  me  no  more  a 
necessity  when  life  is  over  than  compensation  for  the 
worm  or  the  lobster.     Each  is  the  same  thing,  differ- 
entiated by  circumstances  and  conditions — the  homo- 
geneity of  nature  and  the  invariability  of  the  universal 
law  being  surely  among  the  first  lessons  to  be  learned 
by  those  who  dare  to  think. 

Better  and  truer  than  the  individual  consolations 
of  eternity  are  the  general  ameliorations  wrought  in 
time.  By  the  law  of  evolution  which  rules  society — 
the  expression  of  man's  mind — ^just  as  it  rules  the 
translation  of  organisms,  wrong  and  injustice  create 
better  laws  when  the  human  brain  has  advanced  to 
the  point  when  it  can  understand  that  injustice  and 
shape  a  nobler  ideal     The  world,  which  in  its  bar- 


barous nonage  prostrates  itself  at  the  feet  of  crowned 
robbers  covetous  of  their  neighbors^  vineyards— of 
royal  murderers  setting  obstructive  husbands  in  the 
front  of  the  battle  that  the  wives  may  be  possessed 
in  peace— in  its  manhood  sees  the  greater  good  of 
equal  justice  to  all,  and  preaches  the  nobler  law  of 
rights  and  duties  as  against  that  of  submission  and 
privileges.     The  specialized  inheritance  of  the  few 
enlarges  itself  into  the  generous  democracy  of  Christ, 
which  swept  down  the  barriers  of  the  court  and  rent 
the  veil  of  the  temple.     The  Favored  Nation  was 
called  on  to  share ;  the  aristocrats  of  heaven  had  to 
enlarge  their  borders,   and  the  Elect  to  add  new 
thrones  to  their  number.     But  as  presbyter,  once  a 
hberal  protest,   grew  to    be  only  "old  priest  vmt 
large,"  so  Christianity,  which  was  in  the  beginning 
as  wide  as  humanity,  by  the  law  of  consohdation  and 
contraction  working  in  things  spiritual  as  well  as 
material,  has  become  as  close  a  guild  and  as  exclusive 
a  sect  as  the  Judaism  it  was  pledged  to  displace.    By 
the  dogma  of  a  Unified  Trutii,  of  a  divine  and  direct 
revelation,  giving  privileges  to  those  who  beheve  and 
entailing  loss  on  those  who  are  excluded,  the  Savior, 
whose  salvation  was  in  his  universaUty,  has  been  nar- 
rowed into  a  sectarian  deity,  hke  Jehovah,  hke  Allah, 
hke  Vishnti.     It  is  the  Agnostic  who  now  takes  up 
this  lapsed    creed    of    universality— who    preaches 
afresh  the  democracy  of  souls— who,  in  his  belief  that 
the  religious  idea  is  one  to  be  improved  and  finally 
perfected  by  evolution  and  knowledge,  sees  the  time 
salvation  of  men  and  their  final  redemption  from 
error.     In  this  behef  he  his  hope  for  the  future  and 
his  patience  with  the  present,    He  trusts  to  time  to 
carry  on  the  work  of  mental  enlargement,  as  it  has 


172 


A  PROTEST  AND  A  PLEA. 


A  PROTEST  AND  A  PLEA. 


173 


already,  together  with  that  of  physical  improvement ; 
he  trusts  to  science  to  give  us  increase  of  veritable 
knowledge — and  he  knows  that  his  trust  is  not  in 
vain. 

All  bitterness  and  reproach,  all  persecution  and 
scorn,  are  among  the  things  dead  and  done  with  to 
the  Agnostic.  As  Httle  as  he  would  curse  the  ele- 
ments which  wrecked  his  house  and  ruined  his  land 
would  he  curse — though  he  would  prevent — the  spir- 
itual cruelties  of  his  brother,  acting  according  to  the 
law  of  an  uneducated  mind,  a  biiitish  nature,  and 
walkiiig  by  the  dim  hght  of  that  dawn  which  is  not 
yet  morning.  Ho  knows  that  humanity  must  fulfil 
the  universal  law,  and  from  low,  amorphous  begin- 
nings reach  up  to  moral  nobleness  and  spiritual 
beauty.  He  knows  that  all  society  is  experimental, 
all  laws  are  tentative ;  that  the  stream  of  tendency 
does  indeed  make  for  righteousness,  with  many  wind- 
ings and  much  doubling  back  on  its  way,  but  always 
flowing  onward  from  the  darkness  to  the  Hght — from 
the  narrow  rock  in  the  mountain  to  the  broad  and  in- 
finite sea.  In  the  abhorrence  which  good  men  feel 
for  crime  he  sees  the  ultimate  destruction  of  crime ; 
in  the  gi'eat  Man-God  which  forms  the  ideal  of  all 
rehgions  he  sees  the  projection  of  humanity  itself  on 
the  screen  of  the  future  ;  in  the  fact  that  this  human- 
ity has  ever  touched  the  level  of  Moses,  Buddha, 
Christ,  he  sees  the  possibilities  of  the  whole  race. 
He  knows  and  humbly  confesses  the  great  wall  of  tho 
Unknown  between  him  and  the  Ultimate  Verity. 
But  in  measming  where  he  stands  now  from  that 
brutish  Piimitive  who  was  his  ancestor,  he  sees  no 
limit  to  further  infinite  advance.  He  sees  no  limit 
save  that  of  the  individual.     Every  man  must  be  bom 


helpless,  and  if  he  hves  to  the  end  of  his  tether  he 
must  die  decayed,  carrying  his  experiences  with  him. 
All  the  same  the  race  survives. 

Let  it  be  so.     The  individual  is  nothing.     He  is  no 
more  than  the  diatom,  the  bit  of  protoplasm  which 
helps  to  make  a  geological  stratum  and  a  biological 
world.     From  the  individual  as  he  is  now — striving 
after  righteousness,  suffering  for  truth,  offering  him- 
self as  a  fragment  in  the  great  stepping-stone— will 
come  the  race  which   shall  some  day  be  as  gods, 
knowing  good  and  evil.     The  storms  of  the  present 
may  wither  the  vines  and  blight  the  fig-trees,  but  the 
roots  remain ;  and  it  is  better  to  be  among  the  eternal 
roots  of  Yggdrasil,  barren  of  beauty  for  ourselves, 
but  helping  in  the  life  and  solace  of  others,  than  to 
be  one  of  the  fairest  of  the  annuals— things  bom  of 
the  day  and  perishing  with  the  day,  leaving  nothing 
permanent  nor  solid  behind.     Ah !    better  than  all 
personal  gain  of  riches  or  of  love,  which  perish  with 
our  hves,  is  that  immortahty  of  influence  found  in 
the  example  of  those  who  have  done  a  noble  deed  or 
spoken  a  brave  truth  !    Worst  of  all  the  errors,  most 
deadly  of  all  the  UTeligious  denials,  is  that  egotistic 
preference  of  individual  gain  over  the  general  well- 
being.     Not  against  those  who  doubt  the  divine  per- 
sonality  they  cannot  see— who  question  the  fatherly 
care  and  beneficence  of  an  omnipotent  aitificer  who 
has  made  sorrow,  suffering  disease,  and  death  neces- 
sities of  existence— but  against  the  egotists  who 
make  the  unit  of  more  importance  than  the  whole 
should  such  men  as  Mr.  Gladstone  turn  their  arms. 
Speculative  opinions  ai'e  incapable  of  proof,  but  moral 
heroism  is  a  certain  quaatity  ;   and  the  belief  in  and 
practice  of  Altruism  are  essentially  parts  of  that  code 


174 


A   PROTEST  AND   A   PLEA. 


which  has  to  come  to  the  front  in  the  future.  Once 
men  did  not  see  the  higher  ideal  contained  in  the 
spiritualized  Lord  whom  Paul  preached,  over  the 
deities  whom  Ovid  vulgarized.  They  preferred  their 
joyous  hymns  and  picturesque  processions  to  the 
colder,  more  sublime,  less  tangible  worship  of  the 
"  pale  Galilean,"  behef  in  whom  included  the  socialism 
of  general  poverty  for  this  world  and  the  hope  of 
happiness  transferred  from  life  here  to  life  after 
death.  "What  was  it  to  the  joyous  Greek,  to  the 
strong  and  sensual  Roman,  to  whom  Hades  was  but 
a  world  of  shadows,  to  be  told  to  give  up  all  here — 
all  that  was  lovable,  pleasurable,  tangible — for  the 
hypothetical  joys  of  heaven?  Did  he  not  say:  "I 
will  take  when  I  can  and  hold  by  what  I  know?  "  just 
as  those  to  whom  Altruism  is  unwelcome  because  of 
its  destruction  of  egotism  say :  "  What  to  me  is  the 
race?  JT suffer — Zlove — /desire;  what  do  I  care  for 
the  rest  ? "  But  it  has  to  come.  The  nobler  life  is 
inevitable ;  and  the  day  when  Duty  shall  overcome 
Pleasure,  and  Altruism  be  stronger  than  Individ- 
ualism, is  as  certain  in  the  futiire  as  is  the  calculation 
of  an  eclipse  or  a  new  discovery  in  chemistry. 

The  loss  out  of  his  life  of  a  personal  deity  does  not 
dismay  the  Agnostic,  and  the  destruction  of  his  be- 
Hef  in  direct  revelation  has  not  left  him  desolate.  As 
a  brave  man  knows  how  to  die  and  pass  into  the 
darkness  of  the  grave  with  calmness  and  dignity,  so 
a  brave  soul  knows  how  to  Hve  by  the  light  of  an 
educated  conscience  only — that  conscience  being  the 
result  of  gradual  development,  as  much  as  is  the 
sense  of  justice  and  the  consciousness  of  shame.  He 
waits  for  the  time  when  better  knowledge  shall  enable 
men  to  reconcile  the  mystery  of  the  material  cruelty 


A   PBOTEST   AND    A    PLEA. 


175 


of  nature  with  the  pity,  the  justice,  the  moral  sense, 
which  are  the  active  and  substantive  possessions  of 
man  only— who,  after  all,  is  only  matter  conscious 
of  itself  to  the  highest  degree  yet  attained.    He  does 
not  know  why  the  House  of  Life  should  be  thus  di- 
vided against  itself,  nor  why  he,  who  Is  only  a  higher 
translation  of  the  Force  which  expresses  itself  in  the 
worm  and  the  crab,  should  feel  pity  when  he  sees  the 
one  pulled  asunder  by  two  blackbirds— a  sickening 
kind  of  indignation  when  the  Hving  flesh  of  the  other 
is  being  slowly  picked  out  by  the  pincers  of  the 
stronger.      One  with    nature,   and  the  product  of 
material  things,  his  revulsion  from  the  circumstances 
of  his  origin  is  not  to  be  explained  by  the  theory  of 
a  moral  sense— that  something  extra  added  by  the 
God  who  has  originated  these  circumstances.     This 
would  be  to  make  the  creator  ashamed  of  his  own 
creation,  and  to  make  man  his  judge  and  assessor. 
It  is  a  mystery;  and  the  greatest  of  the  many  by 
which  we  are  surrounded.     Why  matter,  fully  con- 
scious of  itself  in  the  mind  of  man,  should  find  the 
inevitable  law,   the  unalterable  conditions  of   life, 
cruel,  and  should  do  what  it  can  to  ameHorate  them, 
is  an'enigma  not  to  be  explained  away  by  the  story  of 
Adam  and  Eve— a  talking  snake   standing  erect— a 
God  who  walked  m  the  garden  in  the  cool  of   the 
evening— a  Forbidden  Tree  and  a  Tree  of  Life— or 
any  other  of  the  mythological  circumstances  to  which 
the  orthodox  pin  their  faith,  finding  them  sufficient 

for  their  peace. 

Let  us  go  out  into  the  open  and  judge  for  our- 
selves. Let  us  climb  to  the  top  of  Mount  Olympus, 
of  Ararat,  of  Meru ;  let  us  Hf  t  up  the  hd  of  the  Ark 
of  the  Covenant,  enter  the  Sepulcher,  touch  the  stone 


176 


A   PROTECT   AND    A   PLEA. 


at  Mecca,  feel  the  wheels  of  the  car  of  Juggernaut, 
and  test  what  we  find  by  the  aid  of  reason  and  such 
science  as  we  possess.  If  we  find  there  things  which 
vanish  as  we  look — things  vaporous  as  clouds  that 
cannot  be  held — unstable  as  the  river  mist  which  can- 
not be  compelled — can  we  still  beheve  in  the  objective 
existence  of  the  faiths  bound  up  with  these  things  ? 
Or  shall  we  not  rather  say  they  are  all  of  the  same 
order — prophet  and  pythoness,  angel  and  demigod, 
Madonna  and  Hera,  Crishna  and  Chiist,  Jehovah  and 
Zeus — they  are  all  names,  not  persons,  and  all  repre- 
sent analogous  conditions  of  brain  differentiated  by 
climate  and  the  tendencies  of  the  race?  Beyond 
them  all  lies  the  boundless  and  impersonal  Infinite — 
the  grandeur  of  impartial  law — the  prizes  to  be  won 
from  the  depths  of  the  as  yet  unknown — and  the 
one  concrete  imperishable  essence  of  all  religion — 
our  duty  to  our  fellow-men,  and  our  duty  in  self- 
respect  to  ourselves. 

Always  the  popular  faith  has  been  the  last  word, 
the  supreme  revelation,  to  those  who  beheve;  and 
always  the  first  doubters — the  Uhlans  preceding  the 
army  of  destroyers  and  subsequent  reconstructors — 
have  been  made  martyrs  to  their  negation.  To  be 
said  to  doubt  the  tutelar  deities  of  the  city  cost 
Socrates  his  life — Socrates,  who,  before  all  men,  taught 
reverence  and  preached  virtue.  To  deny  that  Jesus, 
the  Son  of  Mary,  was  God  Incarnate  has  cost  many 
hundreds  of  Hves.  To  question  the  divine  mission 
of  Mohammed  has  been  as  fatal  to  thousands  as  was 
the  denial  of  the  supremacy  of  Jehovah  to  the  priests 
of  Baal.  The  world  reveres  its  idols,  and  looks  neither 
to  the  fashion  of  their  make  nor  to  the  passions  they 
typify.     Jealous  or  cruel,  punishing  the  children  for 


A    PROTEST   AND   A   PLEA. 


177 


the  father's  sin  or  demanding  the  sacrifice  of  the  in- 
nocent for  the  redemption  of  the  guilty— these  idols 
are  precious  beyond  all  else,  and  their  worship  is 
held  as  dear  as  Hfe  itself.  And  ever  the  deniers  of 
their  divinity  have  been  accused  of  preaching  the 
wildest  immorality  as  well  as  the  most  godless  in^e- 
hgion,  and  of  desiring  to  break  all  the  wholesome 
restraints  which  keep  men  from  crime  and  vice  and 
force  them  to  obey  the  moral  law.  *'  The  frantic 
orgies  of  the  Commune!"  Yes,  that  is  the  modem 
name  for  the  old  stone.  It  is  always  the  same  stone, 
renamed  according  to  circumstances.  But  by  and  by 
the  world  comes  up  to  these  pioneers.  Then  it 
ceases  to  revile,  and  takes  their  place,  crying  out : 
"  We  knew  all  this  before ;  you  are  telhng  us  no  new 

thing."  .     - 

There  is  no  more  sin  in  questioning  the  objective 

truth  of  reUgious  systems  than  there  is  in  verifying  a 
scientific  position.     We  seek  the  truth,  and  the  fact 
of  this  seeking  is  the  proof  that  we  have  not  yet 
found.     "Judicial  bhndness"  is  the  phrase  of  cer- 
tainty so  far  as  the  individual  is  concerned.     But  his 
realization  does  nothing  for  another ;  on  the  contrary, 
that  one  man  reaUzes  one  thing  and  his  brother  an- 
other incontestably  proves  the  subjective  quaUty  of 
each   creed.     The   cry   of  the  human  heart  is   yet 
unanswered,  and  the  reconcihng    medium  between 
man's  moral  sense  and  the  natural  law  is  yet  to  s; 
The  world  stands  with  parched  lips,  waiting  for  . 
dew  of  Hermon  by  which  its  thirst  will  be  slak 
and  tiUwe  cau  reconcile  t^^e-two  (^po§ingmau^ 
Testations  of  the  lame  ForSQ^t^vmlt  r«i9aij3;ift4satij  ^ 
fied.     The  solution  is  not  to  be  found  in  tKe  addfnne 


of  Original  Perfection,  th^  jk}\  ioAMP'  fopseqjie^t 

•        ' ••       • 


«  • 


>  • 


•  •  • 


•  • 

•  •« 


•  •  • 


* 


178 


▲  VKVCESr  AND  A   PLEA. 


sufferings  of  all  life  for  the  childish  disobedience  of 
one  man.  Meanwhile,  we  who  believe  in  the  future 
of  bmnanity  by  the  law  of  progress  wait,  hoping  and 
of  good  heart.  Schools  are  our  temples ;  science  is 
our  ritual ;  time  is  our  heaven ;  the  human  race  con- 
tains our  future  gods ;  and  the  Satan  we  have  to 
conquer  and  to  chain  is  that  arid  Egotism  which  de- 
spises for  the  race  what  it  cannot  enjoy  in  its  own 
person,  and  cares  more  for  the  salvation*  of  its  own 
individuality  than  it  does  for  the  redemption  of  the 
world.  If  in  this  creed  can  be  found  any  analogy  to 
the  frantic  orgies  of  the  Commune,  I  for  one  am  con- 
tent to  stand  in  the  pillory,  and  let  Mr.  Gladstone 
and  his  co-reHgionists  pelt  me  at  their  pleasure. 

E.  Lynn  Linton. 


« 
«  • 


••  • 

»4    • 


•  •  * 


•  * 


•  •  • 


•  •  • 


.'.. 


•  •  • 

•  •  > 


» • 


•  •  • 

•  •  • 


•  •  • 


THE  TRVTH  SEEKER  CO: 8  PUBLICATIONS. 

THE  TRUTH  SEEKER.  Leading  Journal  of  Freethought  and  Reform. 
Largest)  Cheapest,  Best.  The  Enemy  ot  Superstition ;  the  Friend  of  Hu- 
manity. E.  M.  Macdonald,  Editor.  C.  P.  Somerby,  Businesu  Manager. 
Weekly,  Illustrated,  Folio,  16  pages.  Yearly,  $3 ;  Four  months,  $1.  Sample 
Copies,  Circulars,  and  Club  Terms,  free. 

Paine's  Great  Political  and  Theological  Works.     With  Portrait  and 

Lite.  1  vol.,  Octavo,  800 pp.  Cloth,  $3;  leather,  $4;  morocco,  g.e.,  $4.50.  Or,  m 
2  vols.:  Vol.  L  POLIITCAL  W0KK8:  "Common  Sense,"  **  Crisis,"  "  Rights 
of  Man."  Cloth, $1.50.  Vol.  IL  THEOLOGICAL  WORKS:  **  Age  of  Reason," 
"Examination  of  Prophecies,"  etc.,  with  Life  of  Paine  and  Steel  Portrait. 
Cloth,  $1.50.  AGE  OF  REASON.  Paper,  25c.;  cloth,  50c.  AGE  OF  REASON 
AND  EXAMINATION  OF  PROPHECIES.  Pap.,  40c.;  clo.,75c.  RIGHTS  OF 
MAN.  Answer  to  Burke's  Attack  on  French  Revolution.  Pap.,  40c.;  clo., 
75J.    CRISIS.    Written  during  American  Revolution.    Pap.,  40c.;  Clo.,  75c. 

Supernatural  Religion.  An  Inquiry  into  the  Reality  of  Divine  Reve- 
lation. (Said  to  be  written  by  W.  K.  Cjiflford,  F.  R.  S.)  The  most  thorough 
and  exhaustive  work  on  the  claims  of  Supernaturalism  ever  written.  Com- 
plete in  1  vol.,  8vo.,  1115pp.   Cloth,  $4;  leather,  $5;  morocco,  g.e.,  $5.50. 

An  Analysis  of  Religious  Relief.  An  Examination  of  the  Creeds,Rites, 
and  Sacred  Writings  of  the  World.  Bv  Viscount  Amberley.  Complete,  from 
London  Edition,  in  1  vol.,  8vo,  745pp.  Clo.,  $3;  leather,  $4;  morocco,  g.e., $4.50. 

Nathaniel  Taughan  :  Priest  and  Man.    By  Frederika  Macdonald.    A 

StandardFreethougbt  and  Labor  Reform  Novel.     12mo,  404pp.    Cloth,  $1.25. 

The  Creed  of  Christendom.  Its  Foundation  Contrasted  with  its  Super- 
structure.   By  W.  R.  Greg.    Complete  in  1  vol.,  12mo,  399pp.     Cloth,  $1.50. 

The  Old  Faith  and  the  New.  ByD. F.Strauss.  2vols.inl,12mo,clo.,$1.50. 

The  Martyrdom  of  Man.  A  Compendium  of  Universal  History.  By 
Winwood  Reade.    Sixth  ed.    12mo,  544pp.    Cloth,  $1.75. 

The  Order  of  Creation.  The  Conflict  between  Genesis  and  Geology. 
A  Controversy  between  the  Hon.  W.  E.  Gladstone,  Prof.  T.  H.  Huxley,  Prof. 
Max  Mueller,  M.  Reville,  E.  Lynn  Linton.    12mo,  178pp.    Pap.,  50c.;  clo.,  75c. 

The  Reign  of  the  Stoics.  Their  History,  Religion,  and  Philosophy, 
and  Maxims  of  Self-Control,  Self-Culture,  Benevolence,  and  Justice.  By  F. 
M.  Holland.    12ino,  248pp.    Cloth,  $1.25. 

Through  Rome,  On.  A  Memoir  of  Christian  and  Extra-Christian  Ex- 
perience.   By  N.  R.  Waters.    12mo,  352pp.    Cloth,  $1.75. 

The  Christ  of  Paul.  A  Critical  Study  of  the  Origins  of  Christian  Doc- 
trines and  Canonical  Scriptures.    By  George  Reber.  12mo,  400pp.    Cloth,  $2. 

Theology  and  Mythology.  An  Inquiry  into  the  Claims  of  Biblica) 
luHpiration  and  the  Siipematural  Element  in  Religion.  By  A.  H.  O'Don- 
oghue.    12mo,  194pp.    Cloth,  $1. 

The  Truth-Seeker   Annual  and  Freethinkers'  Almanac  for  1885, 

Thirty-nine  Portraits  of  Prominent  American  Freethinkers,  and  other  Illus.. 
120pp,  25c.  THE  SAME  for  1886.  Thirty  Portraits  of  Distinguished  Euro- 
pean  Freethinkers,  Scientists,  and  Philosophers,  and  other  Illus.,  25c. 

The  Story  Hour,    For  Children  and  Youth.    By  Susan  H.   Wixon. 

Without  Superstition.  The  only  IlliiHtrated  Freethinkers'  Children's  Story- 
Book  ever  issued.    66  full-page  and  25  smaller  Illus.    4to,  224pp.,  bds.,  $1.25. 

Men,  Women,  and  Gods,  and  Other  Lectures.  By  Helen  H.  Gardener. 

With  an  Introduction  by  Robert  G.  Ingersoll.  12mo,  180pp.  Pap.,  50c.;  clo.41. 

The  Rrain  and  the  Bible.    The  Conflict  between  Mental  Science  and 

Theology.  ByE.  C.  Beall.  Preface  by  R.  G.  IngersolL  12mo.,  290pp.  Clo.,$l. 

THE  TBUTH  SEIZZa  COMPANY.  28  Lafayette  Place,  New  York. 

Publishers  of  Preethouglit  and  lefonn  Worfe. 
^  Fxtll  List  of  PubUoaMom  9mtfree, 


' 


/ 


THIRD    EDITION. 


BIBLE   MYTHS, 

AND  THEIR  PARALLELS  IN  OTHER  REUGIONS: 

BEXNG  ▲ 

€«mpArisoa  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  Myths  and  Miracles  with  the: 

•f  Heathen  Nations  of  Antiquity, 

CONSIDEEING  ALSO  THEIR  ORIGIN  AND  MEANING. 

WITH  NUMEROUS  ILLU8TBATION8. 


\^Hcathtn  Illustration  of  the  Tempiation.'] 

The  Bundehesh  (a  sacred  book  of  the  Persians,)  states  that 
Ahuramazda  after  creating  the  first  man  and  woman,  Mashya 
and  Mashyana,  bade  them  "to  be  humble  of  heart;  to  obser\  e 
the  law  ;  to  be  pure  in  their  thoughts,  pure  in  their  speech, 
pure  in  their  actions."  But  an  evil  demon  came  to  them  in 
the  form  oi  2i  Serpent^  sent  by  Ahriman,  the  prince  of  devils, 
and  gave  them  fruit  of  a  wondeiful  tree,  which  imparted 
immortality.  Evil  inclinations  then  entered  their  hearts, 
and  all  their  moral  excellence  was  destroyed.  Conse- 
quently they  fell,  and  forfeited  the  eternal  happiness  for 
which  they  were  destined.  They  killed  beasts,  and  clothed 
themselves  in  their  skins. 

Toned  paper,  wide  margins ;  cloth,  8vo,  612pp.,  $2.50. 
THE  TKUTH  SEEKEE  CO., 

28  Lafayette  Place,  New  York, 


INaEiRSOLlv'S    W^ORKS. 

ONLY   AUTHOBIZKD   EDITIONS. 

Priii<>lDAl    Works :    Gods  and  Other  Lectures ;    Ghosts    and    Other 

L^Uires;  Some  Mistakes  of  Moses;  Interviews  on  Talmage;  What  Must  We 

Do  to  Be  Saved  ?    In  one  vol.,  half  calf,  $5. 
Prose  Poems  and  Selections.    From  his  Writings  and  Sayings.    Silk 

cloth,  $2.50;  half  calf,  $4.50;  half  mor.,  $5;  Turkey  mor.,  $7.50. 
Gods    and  Other     Lectures.     Comprising    Tlie    "gods,    Humboldt, 

Thomas  Paine,  Individuality,  Heretics  and  Heresies.    Paper,  oOc.;  cloth,  $1. 

Ghosts  and  Other  Lectures.   Including  Liberty  of  Man,  Woman,  and 

rhild  •  The  Declaration  of  Independence,  About  Farmmg  in  Ilhnois.  Speech 
Nominating  JasG.  Blaine  for*Presidency  m  1876,  The  Grant  Banquet  A 
THbute  tollev.  Alex.  Clarke,  The  Past  Ris^ Before  Me  Like  a  Dream,  and 
A  Tribute  to  Ebon  C.  IngersoU.    Paper,  50c. ;  Cloth,  $1 .2o. 

Some  Mistakes  of  Moses,     Contents:  Some  Mistakes  of  Moses,  Free 

Schools  The  PoUticians,  Man  and  Woman,  The  Pentateuch,  Monday,  Tues- 
dav  WednelcC.Thursaay,  He  Made  the  Stars  Also,  Friday  Saturday,  L^t 
Us  Make  MaTsunday,  The  Necessity  for  a  Good  Memory  The  Garden,  The 
Fall  Daraon^  Bacchus  and  Babel,  Wth  in  Filth,  The  Hebrews,  The  Plagnes, 
The  Flight,  SSf^^and  Avoid  ;  Inspired  Slavery,  Marriage,  War,  Religious 
Liberty;  Conclusion.    Paper,  50c. 

Interviews  on  Talmage.    Being  Six  Literviews  witli  the  Famous  Ora- 

^     tor  on^xsS-monsby^theRev^  T^S^WittTalmage   of  Brooklyn,  to  which  is 
added  A  Talmagian  Catechism.    Paper,  50c.;  Cloth,  $1.^. 

luffersoU-Field    Discussion.     Faith    or    Agnosticism.      Discussion 

between  R.  G.  IngersoU  and  H.  M.  Field,  D.  D.    Paper,  50c.;  Cloth,  $1. 

Blasphemy.      Argument  by  B.  G.  Ingersoll  in  the  Trial  of  C  B. 

Reynolds,  at  Morristown,  N.  J.    Paper,  25c. ;  Cloth,  50c. 
What  Must  We  Do  To  Be  Saved  %    Analyzes  the  so-called  gospels  of 

Matthew  Mark,  Luke,  and  John,  and  devotes  a  chapter  each  to  the  Catho- 
£  Ep^'colS,Uans"  Methodists,  Presbyterians,  Evangelical  Alliance  and  an - 
1  wers  the^Sstion  of  the  Christians  as  to  what  he  proposes  mstead  of  Christi- 
anity, the  religion  of  sword  and  flame.  Paper,  25  cents. 
Thomas  Paine's  Tindication.  A  Reply  to  the  New  York  Oh^ar- 
rer'TAttack  upon  the  Author-hero  of  the  Revolution,  by  R.  G.  Ingersoll; 
W^ltherlSth  A  Roman  Catholic  Canard,  by  W.  H.  Burr.    Paper,  15  centa. 

Limitations  of  Toleration.    A  Discussion  between  Col.  R.G.  ^JgersoU, 

Hon.  Frederic  R.  Coudert,  and  Ex-Governor  Stewart  L.  Woodford .    Paper,  10c. 
Orthodoxy.    A  Lecture.    Paper,  10  cents. 

Civil  Rights  Speech.    With  Speech  of  Hon.  Fredk.  Douglass.   Pap. ,  10c. 
Opening  Speech  to  the  Jury  :    In  the  suit  of  the  B.  &  M.  Tel.  Co. 

vs.  W.  U.  Tel.  Co.,  188G.    Paper,  10  cents. 

Declaration  of  Independence.    Centennial  Oration,  together  with  a 

copy  of  the  ImmortaY  Document  and  the  National  Anthem,  Land  of  Liberty. 
Paper,  6  cents. 

A  Lay  Sermon.    On  the  Labor  Question.    Paper,  5  cents. 
Stage  and  the  Pulpit.    An  Interview  on  their  Comparative  Merits, 
^ul  Opinions  on  the  Trial  of  the  Chicago  Anarchists,  the  CathoUc  Church, 
etc.    Paper.  3  cents.  ^,     >      t*  o 

IngersoU  on  McGlynn.   Paper,  3c.  I  Ingersoll  Catechised.   Paper,  3c. 
Bible  Idolatry.    Paper,  3c.  I  The  Truth  of  History.    Paper,  3c. 

Life.    A  Prose  Poem.    In  color,  on  board,  beveled,  gilt  edges,  50c. 
Lithograph  of  R.  G.  Ingersoll.    23  x  28  inches,  heavy  plate  pap.,  60c. 
Photograph  (Cabinet)  of  R.   G.   Ingersoll,  50  cents. 
THE  TRITTH  swiTEB  CO.,  28  Lafayette  Place,  New  Tork* 


VOLTAIRE'S  W^ORKS. 


PhilosophicAl  Dictionary.  Complete  LoDdon  Edition,  with  addi- 
tional articles*  traoBlated  directly  from  the  French.  Two  Tolamei  in  one^  879 
large  octavo  pages*  and  two  steel  engrarings.    Oloih,  $4.60;  sheep*  15. 


Toltalre's  Romances.  A  New  Edition,  with  Numerous  niuBtrationB. 

yersation  with  a 
Obinete.  Plato's 
Dream.    A  Pleasure 


OoMTXNTs:  The 
White  Bull;  A  Satir- 
ical Bomanoe.  Za* 
dig*  or  Fate;  An 
Oriental  History. 
The  Sage  and  the 
Atheist.  The  Prin- 
oess     of     Babylon. 


The  Man 
Orowns. 
ran;   oci 
Natare. 


of  Forty 
The  Hn- 
PupU  of 
Microma- 


V^lU'rt. 


in  Haying  no  Pleas- 
ure. An  Adventure 
in  India. 

I  choose  that  a 
story  should  be 
founded  on  proba> 
bility,  and  not  al- 
ways riMBfcte  • 
drfAflo.  I  dUiira  to 
flod  M<lhiB«  ia  n 
txUrUX  cr  extrava- 
gaai;  a»d  I  &mitt 
^kow  alI«thatun4eT 
tbe  appearaDOA  uf 
fabin,  tbir*  Bajr  ai^ 
p«ar  tent  latent 
trutk.obvloaalotke 
disoMrnlAff  •  7  •  • 
ilxmfh  U  e».>ap«  ti« 
obMrration  uf  iht 
mlgaf.— tVoltalre. 


ir»4 :  A  Satixe  on  the 
PbUoaopbr,  Isoo- 
ranoi^i  and  A«lf  •<roa- 
ttA%  of  Maolind 
XbeWorldasttgMi. 
The  Yuiuu  of  B^- 
fcoQC  Tbo  BUok 
and  the  Wkit«. 
Momnon  the  PhUp 
otoyfcsr.  Aidrtdc* 
TbodiM  ai  Biam. 
B«bat^.  Tb*8tapdf 
of  Katuro.    A  Omi- 

Frkik,  paper.  H:  cloth.  Uv^lcdbosids.  •!•»•;  half  «aif  or  bilf»MOM0v  dm* 
U»d  edge*.  H 

y#lUire  in  Exile.  Hy  Bcn^amia  Oaitin^au.  Hit  lAfe  aJMl  Work  la 
FnuiM  asd  atav>ad.  With  Ufipmhlisbcd  Lottecs oi  Voltaire  and  Mm*.  €tet«l«^ 
Pap«r.  n  cLs :  doth,  |3.co. 

FM-Jcet  Tb€«lot7.  TnuiBlateU  from  lh«  French  hj  Sllcn  (^rroXL 
Faper.lftoeests. 

Jfthorab  lIiTeiled,  or  Um  Obikmrifr  of  Ih4  J«vUk  Deity  Dctooted  i 
LeUtr  to  the  Biiteap  of  Uandair.    Pap«r»»««it». 

fbe  Ignorant  rbtIo»4oi>her,  and  Advoaaturea  of  PytbifOflilii  IlkUa. 

.10 


THK  TKUTH  SEKKER  COMPANY, 

28  La&iyette  Place,  New  York* 


WORKS  oy  rnts  j.ahor  qusstiox. 


General  Introduction  Xm  SmIaI  Sctaide*  Pajht  I.  Introdviction  V9 
Fourier's  Theory  of  B^xIaI  Omalfatkvu  By  Albert  BriibaM.  Tabt  1L 
Social  DoBtmies.    By  Cbarica  Ftmnrr.    9re^  S7tpp.i  ek^  13. 

Theory  of  Social  OrgranJxatioii*  Hy  Clu^les  Fouiiir.  Wltli  an  Intro. 
dnction  by  Albert  Britbanf,    VUao*  M«^«  ci^»  ILSOL 

Fourier's  theory  is  radic^ly  miMftAtrfftood  by  the  t«EZMra]  pMfei  i^aA  r^  true 
test  of  It  has  ever  yet  been  madelnfca^tk^.  TL^Kr<daMtwilido^^lchtowal>i 
f  umifihiDg  a  knowledge  of  tbe  BUlo  and  hla  teachiHgi   rrtffml  Itniftr, 

Socialism.  A  Reply  to  Ro«wcU  D.  TQUhooAt  D.D.  By  an  iDdepcs. 
dent  Socialist.    l2mo,  (Of  P.«  P«^*  tte ;  cio.t  Ma. 


for  the  miser  a  ole  7  be  asliH     TK^^^IoqtltM  lb»l  BCvn<rsaWBMAM^ 
iect "  he  attacks,  and  insiifU  that  tt  lAOolil  ^UMslit  * alM.   W&Btbe dOM sei be- 
lieve that "  property  is  robbery***  ce  wb:Of  aut«eribe  to  "tke  wtirM  owe«nif  n  Ut. 
ing,"  ho  affirms  ''  the  wor>1  ovca  BLO  a  chaooo  to  make  a  liTise**— >'•  >'•  iirrutd. 

Nathaniel  Van^han.  Prifsit  and  Kan.  By  Frcdcrika  Kacikoald.  8Uii« 

dard  Frcethonght  and  Iuibc«  IWform  HoxtL     9  Tok.  in  1.*  llBMv  #ttVv«C^» 
gold  side  and  back  staznp«  fl.9w 

Modem  Thinker.    (No.  fi.)    Tb* Moot  Adrasc^d  f^pr^-ilHlionJ)  In  PliU 
losophy,  Science,  SociotogF^ and  BeUglon.    fr^v  Jft^i'js ,  -^ .-.iL.  75c 

UloC^nTentionaJ  Lie?;  of  Ovr  Cliiliutlcin.    By  Max  Nordau.    CoK* 
TSimL— Mi»oa»TftLsl.  Uidianbk ;  The  K<tu)Mii»  ll0Qar<hi0t.aa4  Artoftoorate 

moar.   llnio.aMpp.»p«.^«Pi»opM*acdiiiua.eOaL.{ekL«|LM 
Tbt  Imperial  O^gacll  of  TlMoa  prohibited  the  saif  .of  Ihte  book  ia  Atuiris, 
anaMoilfeatad  aaoopMs  of  it  they  ooaki  tnn, 
Eeoaomle  CqpltfHi*    A  Compfod  of  th»*  NntunU  Lawa  ot  JoduMriai 

l*rodiaetka  and  ilxvbaogo.   hj  J.  K.  In^alU,  aaihur  uf  *"3Mtel  Wtailb." 

I*apw«29o. 

Sext  Step  to  Pr«fr«iit   limitatioo  o<  W«aKli.  ByJ.H.Kcywr.  Me. 

SortalbM  and  |>Ulttartaniun.    By  J.  8.  Hm.    liimo»  :d86|»p.,  clOt,  ft- 

Fndta  of  PhiloMpky.    A  TrtatiMs  oo  the  Popniadoa  Oncitkni.    By 
I>r.  Cham  KncmrHon.   Fdited  by  ChaHMiBfadlaiifhaa4ABmeBe«iBt,   9c 

FOTerty  i  Ita  Cau^  and  C'ure«    PoUatlng  out  the  neuit  ty  vhich  tho 

wnrktng  rU«»#«i  may  raiM^  ihiTSj»ih>e«  fruui  tbclr  t<««eot  state  of  lorn  vmm 
aad  r»M<J>i  i  toil  10  ottOoC  oomforU  di^rnily.  and  lodsptyAtnca,  and  «hleb 
isalsoeaMibU'uf  <atMfrMK>vlQg,  i^  coorM  uf  UsM»lba  olbtr  p(teei(»al 
erllsl    By  ILO.B. 


Lanre  or  S«all  FamlllMT   Oe  which  Sldo  LSea  the  BalaacQ  ot  Com^ 

flirt?    Ily  An*U=  Hulyc<ik«.    fte. 

Foterty :  Ita  ilfota  on  tho  I'oUUcal  CV>ndiClua  at  tiM  Tt^plt.    By 

Why  I>o  Men  Starve  T    By  ChaH^^  Brajilauifh.    5c. 

The  Land  Qnrritinn^    I^arge  UstaU-a  luimical  to  tho  Wdftieof  the 
Fcijple.    By  Chas.  Bradlat^b.    &o, 

Lahor'a  Prayer.    By  Chaa.  Bradlaugh.    60. 

Iietten  U  To«nir  People.    By  (Prinoe)  Pieter  Krapotkino.    With  Life 

The  Truth  Seeker.    Lcadlayc  Joanial  of  Froethong^t  and  Reform. 
It,  Chi«tp««i,  Be*t.   TLr  Ebcoiy  of  tiopcrstlticaMke  JhrWnd  «f  Hti« 
r.  ^.  M.  >Ia<«1ona|(l.  ]Caat47r,     a  f,  BocMrby,  BMSo«ea  Maaag<| 
ri jOoalratMi  Fuliu  16  oagM.     Yearly,  $9 :  rooj  montht,  11, 
k  urcoiarsv  and  Ciub  TnnzM, 


TSinVTB 


-•Mjijei' 


CO.,  aa  Lai^tU  Tita^  Ktv  Toib  / 


i! 


MTE 


The  Sole  Factors  and 
Exact  Ratios  tn  Its  Acqalrement  and  Apportionment. 

In  proceeding  toward  any  given  point,  there  is  always  one  line  which  is 
shortest— The  Stbaioht  ;  so,  in  the  conduct  of  hmnan  affairs,  there  is  always 
one  course  which  is  best — ^Ths  Just. 

BY  J.  K.  INCALLS. 
12mo,  320pp.,  large  type,  good  paper,  silk  eloth,  $1. 

Contents.— Economic  Schools— A  Brief  Review  of  their  Origin  and  Growth* 
Bise  and  Growth  of  Capitalism ;  Unearned  Increase— Profit,  Interest,  Rent ;  Con- 
servation of  Wealth ;  Tools  and  Improved  Machinery;  The  Nature  of  Wages;  Pri- 
vate and  Social  Wealth ;  Land  Ownership ;  Private  Property  in  Land ;  Capital  and 
the  Productive  Factors ;  Partnership  and  Co-operation ;  Law  of  Contracts ;  Money 
and  Credit ;  Of  Value,  or  Economic  Ratios ;  Taxation  as  a  Remedy ;  Reforms, 
not  Remedies ;  Suggestions  to  Legislators ;  Summary  of  Definitions— Economic 
and  Isonomic. 

Extract.— From  conquests  with  bludgeons,  swords,  and  spears,  as  in  the 
earlier  ages,  civilism  has  inaugurated  a  war  of  cunning  and  fraud,  whose 
weapons  are  technical  terms,  shrewd  devices,  class  legislation,  and  forms  of 
law  recognizing  no  rights  as  supreme  but  those  of  property  and  the  law  of  the 
market. 

Extract.— To  get  something  for  nothing  becomes  a  habit  and  acultu8,which, 
as  a  man  grows  in  years,  he  tries  to  reduce  to  an  art.  If,  by  shrewd  device  or 
subtle  pretense,  he  can  wholly  escape  work,  and  saddle  the  expense  of  life  upon 
others,  he  learns  that,  under  the  teachings  of  our  exact  economy  and  reformed 
theology,  he  will  be  entiled  to  social  distinction  and  respect,  and  to  have  his 
position  defended  by  learned  professor  and  titled  dignitary,  both  secular  and 
rehgious. 

Shows  throughout  a  complete  mastery  of  the  Buhiect.— Sociologist. 
Very  radical  in  his  views.    Written  with  force  and  evident  ihonghi.— Kansas 
City  Times. 

A  work  of  inestimable  value  in  the  new  field  of  thought,  and  very  clearly 
written.— fForfd. 

A  critical  review  of  the  various  systems  of  property  and  labor  in  vogue  for 
many  &geB.— A  Urutst, 

A  study  in  political  economy,  and  evinces  wide  erudition  and  deep  thought.— 

Yates  Co.  (N.  Y.)  Chronicle. 

All  who  can  should  read  it,  particularly  the  very  wealthy,  who  are  in  th« 
greatest  danger.— T/ie  Liberal, 

The  author  evinces  a  mind  free  from  bias,  canvassing  the  subjects  treated 
with  vigor  and  clearness.— 2VMi7i  Seeker  (N.  Y.). 

The  result  of  profound  investigation,  careful  reading,  and  deep  thought.  Em- 
bodies the  moat  advanced  ideas  of  econoTmcB.— Washington  Post, 

Every  workingman  should  read  it,  and  every  thinking  man  may  obtain  en- 
lightenment ana  food  for  thought  from  it.— Boston  Labor  Journal, 

Takes  radical  ground  and  contains  matter  that  not  only  advanced  thinkerst 
but  the  public  generally,  may  well  consider  with  care.— I»av  Star  (N.  Y.). 

The  argument  is  directed  toward  points  of  investigation  which  often  escape 
the  economist,  but  which,  when  settled,  serve  to  make  the  rest  clear.— ^o/in 

Swintwi's  Paj)er. 

Intelligence— an  exact  and  systematized  knowledge  of  the  great  governing 
laws  of  life— he  considers  to  be  the  only  solvent  of  the  great  problems  of  the  age. 

— Banner  of  Light. 

One  of  the  best  publications  on  this  subject.  Able,  thorough,  and  logical. 
Many  of  the  chapters  are  remarkable  for  their  depth  of  thought,  and  are  worth 
three  times  the  price  of  the  book. — Sunday  Gazetteer. 

P^The  highest  praise  any  book  on  this  subject  could  receive  has  been  ac- 
corded this  work,  the  policy  of  silence  in  regard  to  it  having  been  pursued  by 

nearly  all  of  the  capitalistic  press.. 


MEN,  WOMEN,  AND  GODS, 

AND    OTHER   LECTURES. 

By  HELEN  H.  GARDENER. 

WITH   AN    INTRODUCTION 

By  col.  R.  G.  INGERSOLL. 

Pnblished  by  The  Truth  Seeker  Company,  28  Lafayette  PL,  New  York. 
HeJv?^^rr  toiiSme^  bound  in  cloth,  ll.OO  i  paper  covers,  60  cents. 


THE  TRUTH  SEEKER  C0.»  28  Lafayette  Place,  New  York. 


PEESS   NOTICES. 

rTViAnhicftffo  Wrrwisisone  of  the  most  wide-awake  and  independent  newB- 
Dat>S?in^?n?aVltl  daily  circulation  is  43,000  copies ;  its  Sunday  circidation 
FsEut  a  fe^uTdred  less  thL  60,000.  The  daily  edition  is  never  fess  than  te^ 
tTaees,  while  its  Sunday  edition  often  reaches  twenty..  Helen  H.  hardener  may 
fSoTe  conJrttXte  herself  that  her  book  has  induced  so  Jide^f^^  a 
journal  to  give  its  world  an  opinion  so  damaging  to  the  claims  of  Chnstiamty 
as  the  following  notice  of  "Men,  Women,  and  Gods  :' J  n..r.ioT,pr  i«  a 

"Men,  Women,  and  Gods,  and  Other  Lectures,"  by  Helen  H.  Gardener,  is  » 
flnodecimo  volume  of  about  186  pages,  containing  three  lectures  ^ith  an 
np^ndix,seTun^forth  some  of  the  authorities  from  which  the  lecturer  draws 

^^'"Thefi'rst^lectur^e^  gives  the  title  to  the  book,  the  second  is  on  "Vicariona 
Atonement,"  and  the  Sird  on  "  Historical  Facts  and  Tlieolpgical  Fictions^ 

AllTre  keen,  \agSrous,  and  acrid  attacks  on  the  Christian  church  forms  of 
theology  They  Sn  scarcely  besaid  to  be  attacks  on  rehgion  or  rehgious  feej- 
ine  since  the  flower  of  that  plant  is  charity  of  thought  and  action,. and  in  this 
mSs  Gardener  seS  the  highest  end  of  man's  emotional  side,  as  in  absolute 
^eedom  of^nvestigation  anS  opinion  she  sees  the  highest  end  of  1^;«  "jteUectual 
Bide  H-r  leading  purpose  seems  to  be  to  show. that  women,  of  aU persons, 
Ihoiild  LTast  suppol^^^  and  the  churches  which  .hold  it  m  reverence 

The  first  lecture  is  a  surprisingly  bitter  and  scathing  denunciation  of  the 
OldTestlS^entasthesumol  aU  cruelty  and  bmtahty  toward  women,  an^ 
inakes  UD  a  startUngly  strong  case  from  the  pages  of  the  book  itself.  .  J-t^any  one 
S  not  thfnk  th?case  can1>e  made  strong  let  him  read  carefully  this  book  and 
also  the  thirty-firSt  chapter  of  "  Numbers."  ,  .  , ,    '^i„r,*i^^ 

The  second  lecture  arraigns  vicarious  atonement  as  an  inexcusable  injustice 
in  itsofffweTkening^^^  in  its  influence,  like  indiscriminate  alms- 

Sv/ng,  and  Ss  oTth^^^^        not  peculiar  to  ckristiamty,  but  is  found  in 

""^i't'hThlSe'arl^rTst^^^^^^^^^  disfigured  with  a  good 

deal  of  flippant  pShag.de8i^e%,n  doubt,  t^  catch  thejpooular  attention  by 
tiSlinc  the  popular  ear.  The  lecturer's  strongest  .work  is.  done  in  the  third 
Kre^XSe?ie?puiTOseisto8howthat  our. civilization  " i.^i .^ ^?!S.^f^>S 
S-p  Christianity,  anT^  the  Christian  religion  has  e^^^^^y  ^^^.^^fi^ 
nted  to  the  elevation  of  woman  in  any  respect.  Mere  sHe  drops  largely  ner 
^ppancy  of  style  and  settles  down  to  earnest  work.  ^^  .^^„^„x  ^r,.  x,„,-„  „# 
Civilization  she  holds  to  be  chiefly  the  creature  of  environment,  the  basis  or 
whioh  in  this  world,  is  in  cUmate  and  soil.  In  support  of  ^er  .view  of  the  posi- 
Sn  o J  womanTe  quo^^^^^  largely  from  Sir  Henrymne,  snowing  am 
tnin£?8  that  the  position  of  woman  in  Roman  law  and  usage,. bef ore  tbe  mtro- 
ductfon  of  Chrisffi  ty^w^  in  advance  of  what  it  is  even  now  >n  some  resj^cts, 
and  Siat  the  tendency  of  the  canon  (church)  law  was  invariably  to  force  her 
bS?k  into  the. de^S^^  which  she  had  been  rescued  by  a  long  and 

^^"iL"iMl'le''ctu?e,  too,  she  answers  the  questions  as  to  ^l^at^he  would  substi- 
tute  for  the  sanctions  ol  Christianity,  and. she  takes  considerable  pams  to 
show,  what  one  would  think  need  8carce\y  be  insisted  ^P^^ /»  .«Y„<i?;y' *S^>  *^? 
morals  of  civilization— morals  in  general,  mdeed-are.  not  at  aU  based  in  or 
detSidentupSTreh^^^^  on  Christianity,^  since  the  80-c.alled 

S  gSden  nS??'  the  tehest  principle  of  moraUty,  antedates  Chnstiamty  » 
thousand  years. 


:i 


I 


l!i 


'.\ 


PBOF.  FELIX  L,   OSWALD'S  WORKS, 


* 


THE  SECKET  OF  THE  EAST;  or,  The  Origin 
OF  THE  Christian  Eeligion,  and  the  Signifi- 
cance OF  ITS  ElSE  AND    DECLINE.      Cloth,  $1. 


THE  BIBLE  OF  NATUKE ;  or,  The  Principles 
OF  Secularism.  A  Contribution  to  the  Re- 
ligion OF  THE  Future.     Cloth,  $1. 


PHYSICAL  EDUCATION ;  or,  The  Health-Laws 
OF  Nature.    Cloth,  $1. 


HOUSEHOLD  EEMEDIES;  for  the  Prevalent 
Disorders  of  the  Human  Organism.    Cloth,  |1. 


THE  POISON   PEOBLEM;    or,  The   Cause  and 
Cure  of  Intemperance.    Pap.,  25cts ;  clo.,  75cts. 


SUMMEELAND  SKETCHES ;  or,  Eambles  in  the 
Backwoods  of  Mexico  and  Central  America. 
Profusely  Illustrated  from  Designs  by  H.  F. 
Farny  and  H.  Faber.     8vo,  cloth,  $2.50. 


ZOOLOGICAL  SKETCHES.  A  Contribution  to 
THE  Outdoor  Study  of  Natural  History.  8vo, 
cloth,  $2. 

For  all  of  the  above  address 

THE  TEUTH  SEEKEE  CO., 

28  Lafayette  Place,  New  York. 


B.  F.  UNDERVvrOODS   WORKS. 

Essays  and  Lectures.     Embracing  Influence  of  Chrifih 

tianity  on  Civilization ;  Christianity  and  Materialism ;  What  Lib 
eralism  offers  in  Place  of  Christianity ;  Scientific  Materialism; 
Woman;  Spiritualism  from  a  Materialistic  Standpoint;  Paine 
the  Political  and  Religious  Reformer;  Materialism  and  Crime; 
Will  the  Coming  Man  Worship  God?  Crimes  and  Cruelties  d 
Christianity;  the  Authority  of  the  Bible;  Freethought  Judged 
by  its  Fruits;  Our  Ideas  of  God.  300  pp.,  paper,  60  cent8»- 
cloth,  $1. 

Influence  of  Christianity  npon  Ciyilization.  25  centa 

Christianity  and  Materialism.    X5  centa. 

What  Libemlism  Oflfers  in  Place  of  Christianity. 

10  cents.    • 

Scientific  Materialism:  Its  Meaning  and  Tendency. 

10  cents. 

Spiritualism  from  a  Materialistic  Standpoint    10 

cents. 

Paine  the  Political  and  Religious  Reformer.  10  cents. 

Woman:  Her  Past  and  Present:  Her  Rights  and 
Wrongs.     10  cents. 

Materialism  and  Crime.    10  cents. 

Will  the  Coming  Man  Worship  God?    10  cents. 

Cripies  and  Cruelties  of  Christianity.    10  cents. 

Twelre  Tracts.     Scientific  and  Theological.    20  centa 

Burgess-Underwood  Debate.  A  four  day's  debate  be- 
tween B.  F.  Undkbwood  and  Pbop.  O.  A.  Buboess,  President 
of  the  Northwestern  Christian  University,  Indianapolis,  Ind. 
Accurately  reported.   188  pp.   Paper,  50  cents;  cloth,  80  cents. 

Underwood-Marples  Debate.    A  four  nights'  debate 

between  B.  F.  undkbwood  and  Kbv.  John  Mabplks.    Fully 
reported.     Paper,  35  cents;  cloth,  60  cents. 


I 


m 


■■i\ 


THE   SAFEST  CREED, 

AND 

Twelve  Other  Recent  Discourses  of  Reason. 

By  O.  B.  FROTHINGHAM. 

THIRD  EDITION. 

Extra  Cloth,  12mo,  238  pp.,  $1. 

CoNTKOTs.— Safest  Creed,  Radical  Belief,  Radical's  Root,  Joy  of  a  Free  Faith, 
Living  Faith,  Gospel  of  To-Day,  Gospel  of  Character,  Scientific  Aspect  of  Prayer. 
Naked  Truth,  Dying  and  Living  God,  Infernal  and  Celestial  Love,  Inunortalities  of 
Man,  Victory  Over  Death. 

OPINIONS  OF  THE  PKESS. 

A  vigorous  thinker  ...  as  eloquent  as  Theodore  Parker  ...  so 
smoothly  written  that  even  those  who  cannot  accept  his  deductions 
will  yet  be  scarcely  able  to  lay  the  book  down  till  it  is  finished.  —New 
Bedford  Standard. 

**  To  cherish  no  illusion  "  might  be  the  text  of  every  one  of  the  dis" 
courses.  There  is  everywhere  a  resolute  attempt  to  adjust  thought  and 
life  to  what  is  really  known,  to  accept  the  facts  and  then  see  what 
sustenance  can  be  extracted  from  them.  A  book  like  this  is  certain 
to  be  widely  read  and  to  produce  a  deep  impression. — Liberal  Chris- 
tian. 

Mr.  Frothingham  is  a  gentleman  of  fine  scholarly  attainments,  a  su- 
perior writer  and  an  eloc^uent  speaker,  and,  judged  by  his  intellect, 
liberality,  progress  and  independence,  is  jprobably  the  best  preacher 
in  the  United  States  at  the  present  day.  On  what  is  human,  natural, 
practical,  useful  and  liberal,  he  is  very  conclusive,  instructive,  and 
gratifying,  and  gems  of  this  kind  are  sparkling  on  every  page  of 
"  The  Safest  Creed."— .Boston  Investigator. 

Mr.  Frothingham's  idea  of  God  is  as  noble  a  conception  as  ever 
emanated  from  the  brain  of  a  human  being.  He  is  painted  in  the 
finest  and  most  charming  colors.  Mr.  F.'s  use  of  the  brush  is  that  of 
the  most  accomplished  artist,  and  thinking  men  of  every  shade  of 
opinion  will  fina  delight  in  the  picture  presented. — Jewish  Times. 

These  discourses  manifest  deep  thought,  thorough  conviction,  and 
great  ability. — Philadelphia  Press. 

The  author  of  these  discourses  is  the  high  priest  of  New  England 
rationalism,  and  is  the  recognized  exponent  of  the  latest  and  most 
genteel  phase  of  modern  infidelity.  None  of  his  contemporaries  can 
approach  him  in  elegance  of  diction.  He  writes  gracefully,  in  the 
richest  garb  of  flowery  rhetoric. — Albany  Evening  Journal. 

The  author  has  courage  as  well  as  sincerity,  and  presents  his  ideas 
with  entire  frankness,  and  with  a  clearness  of  style  and  intellectual 
strength  which  will  command  for  them  general  attention.  The  book 
is  printed  on  tinted  paper,  and  is  handsomely  bound.— J?M^(W  Satur- 
day Evening  Gazette. 


THEOLOGY  AND  MYTHOLOGY. 

An  Inquiry  into  the  Claims  of  Biblical  Inspiration 
and  the  Supernatural  Element  in  Religion. 

By  ALFRED  H.  O'DONOGHUE, 

Counselor  at  Law,  formerly  of  Trinity  College,  Dublin. 

Extra  Cloth,  12mo.,  194  pp.       -       -       -       -       Price,  $1.00 

OPINIONS  OF  THE  PRESS. 

An  able  and  thorough  treatment  of  the  subject,  remarkable  for  its 
candor,  earnestness,  and  freedom  from  partisan  bias. — Critical  Eeview. 

As  a  man  of  liberal  education  and  wide  reading,  and  one  who  thor- 
oughly understands  himself,  and  is  actuated  by  an  earnest  desire  to 
find  the  right,  he  deserves  a  he&nng.— American  Bookseller, 

It  has  the  brilliancy  and  felicity  of  many  other  Irish  writings. 
The  author  was  educated  in  the  Episcopal  church,  and  his  dedica- 
tion of  his  ability  to  free  thought  and  speech  will  be  widely  appre- 
ciated.— Commonwealth  (Boston). 

The  author  is  evidently  well-read  in  the  authorities  pro  and  eon, 
has  a  clear  mental  view  of  the  case  as  it  is,  handles  all  the  evidence 
as  he  would  in  a  case  at  law,  and  expresses  his  opinions  and  convic- 
tions in  a  fearless  manner.  He  treats  the  whole  subject  in  a  purely 
rationalistic  manner— just  as  all  subjects  that  interest  the  human 
race  ought  to  be  treated. — St.  Louis  Republican. 

The  book  can  be  read  by  intelligent  religionists  without  prejudice. 
There  is  no  harm  in  understanding  what  the  liberal  mind  is  thinking 
about,  and  if  mythology  has  anything  to  do  with  theology  we  should 
know  it. — Kansas  City  Journal,. 

EXTRACTS.        ' 

"  While  at  the  Dublin  University,  with  the  intention,  at  the  proper 
time,  of  entering  the  Divinity  School,  my  mind  underwent  a  great 
change,  both  as  to  the  so-called  truths  of  Revelation  and  the  sincerity 
of  belief  held  in  those  assumed  truths  by  over  three-fourths  of  the  or- 
dain^ and  educated  preachers  of  the  gospel  with  whom  I  came  in  con- 
tact. . .  1  seek  to  eliminate  the  fictitious  in  Christianity  as  now  taught." 

*'  The  doctrines  that  Jesus  taught— the  brotherhood  of  man  and  the 
condemnation  of  priestcraft — entitle  him  forever  to  the  admiration  and 
gratitude  of  his  race  .  .  .  Jesus,  like  all  great  reformers,  was  himself 
m  advance  of  the  conscience,  as  well  as  the  intelligence,  of  his  age,  but 
in  order  to  render  his  mission  at  all  successful,  he  was  compelled  to 
deal  gently  with  the  superstitions  of  his  time.  Probably  he  was  not 
himseljf  altogether  divested  of  them." 

"'The  pale  Galilean  has  conquered;'  but  it  has  only  been  by 
passing  under  the  yoke  of  the  conqueror,  and  assuming  the  ban- 
ners, the  emblems,  and  the  passwords  of  the  enemy.  It  is  a  conquest 
in  which  genuine  Christianity  has  disappeared,  or  skulks  behind  altars, 

Eillars,  paintings,  and  music.  Christianity  as  taught  and  understood 
y  Jesus  and  his  followers  has  ceased  to  exist  for  sixteen  hundred 
years.  Even  the  infant  Church  was  driven  to  abandon  the  Commun- 
istic idea  that  distinguished  the  first  few  years  of  its  existence.  In  mod- 
em Christianity  hardly  a  trace  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  is  discernible. 
If  Jesus  and  his  true  life  were  taken  from  Christianity,  it  is  doubtful  if 
it  would  excite  notice,  or,  if  noticed,  cause  regret,  comment,  or  surprise. ' 


APPBOPBIATB  TO  ALL  SEAaONB! 

THE    STORY    HOUR. 

For  CHILDREN  and  YOUTH. 

By  SUSAN  H.  WIXON,  Conductor  of  the  "ChUdren's  Comer" 
in  the  New  York  "  Truth  Seeker." 

QUABTO      (8x10     inches),      NEARLY     THREE      HUNDRED      PAGES 

WITHOUT     SUPERSTITION.      THE    ONLY    FREETHINKERS* 

OHILDBEN's     STORY-BOOK    EVER    ISSUED.      ILLU- 

rnUATED   COVERS.       SIXTY-SIX  FULL- PAGE 

and   twenty-five   smaller 

illustrations. 

lasax  type,  heavy  toned  paper,  bboad  mabgins. 

Fbios  (formerly  $1.25),  $1« 

PBESa  NOTICES. 

A  book  that  is  worth  every  cent  asked  for  it,  and  more.— [Sociolo^st. 

Will  interest,  amnse,  and  instruct  at  the  same  time.— [National  Equal 
Eights. 

Pleasing,  and  will  stimulate  to  healthful  thought  and  right  endeayor. 
--[Banner  of  Light. 

**  It  is  just  lovely— a  perfect  jeweL  Cannot  fail  to  please  everybody, 
whether  of  our  *  faith'  or  any  other." 

Full  of  beautiful  and  useful  lessons  for  the  young,  and  too  much  can- 
not be  said  in  its  praise.— [Winsted  Press. 

No  book  of  greater  beauty,  more  cbanning  text,  or  more  f ascinatinf 
pictures  could  be  given  to  any  child.-[John  Swinton's  Paper. 

i?ntirAlv  nricrinal.  Dure  in  tone,  and  well  calculated  to  broaden, 
lighten,  anS  st?e^Sthen  the  growing  mind.-[Rhode  Island  Pendulum. 

A  book  that  should  be  in  every  family.  We  would  recommend  it 
above  any  other  book  of  the  kind  now  known  to  us.-[Independent  Pulpit. 


Stirs  and  stimulates  the  noblest  inspirations  of  its  readers.  Every 
Preethought  parent  who  can  possibly  .pay  for  it,  and  does  not  purchase  a 
CTi^rwilX  be  iguilty  of  injustice  to  Ms  or  her  chUdren. -[Freethinkers' 

Magazine. 

THE  TRUTH  SEEKEK  CO,,  28  Lafayette  Place,  New  Yor>, 


A      ' 


THE    ORDER  OF    CREATION. 

THE 

CONFLICT  BETWEEN  GENESIS 
AND  GEOLOGY. 

A  CONTROVEBSY  BETWEEN  THE 

Hon.  W.  E.  GLADSTONE,  Pbof.  MAX  3IULLER, 

Peof.  T.  H.  HUXLEY,  M.  RliVILLE, 

E.  LYNN  LINTON. 

12mo,  178  pp.,  paper,  50  cts. ;  cloth,  75  cts. 

ADAM!    AND    HEVA. 

A  NEW  VEKSION. 

By    SAMUEL    P.    PUTNAM. 
12ino,  24  pp.,  paper,  10  cents. 

MOSES  BEFORE  THE   COURT: 

OB  THE 

FORGERY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

DEDICATED  TO  THE  CLERGY. 

By  H.  J.  SEIGNEURET,  M.D.  (alias  Seoulabist), 

A  graduate  of  the  University  of  France,  and  Author  of  **  St.  Matthew 

Before  the  Coubt." 

12mo,  32  pp.,  paper,  10  cents. 


PERSONAL    EXISTENCE    AFTER 
DEATH    IMPROBABLE. 


By  L.  R.  smith. 

12mo,  32  pp.,  paper,         -         .  . 


10c. 


BIBLE    TEMPERANCE. 

LIQUOR  DRINKING  COMMENDED,  DEFENDED. 
AND  ENJOINED  BY  THE  BIBLE. 

By  EDWIN  C.  WALKER. 

12mo,  48  pp.,  paper,  10  cents. 


XJiUTH  SEEKER  CO.,  ^  I^afayette  flace,  N^w  York. 


THE  TRUTH  SEEKER, 


THE  UADING  FREETHOUeHT  JOURNAL  OF 

THE  WORLDc 

LARGEST,  CHEAPEST,  AND  BEST. 

PUBLISHED   EVEET   SATURDAY   AT   $3.00  PER 
YEAR ;    $1.50  FOR  SIX  MONTHa 

SAMPLE    COPIES    FREE. 

28  LAFAYETTE  PLACE,        NEW  YORK  CITY. 

foV^rgtourpuriSei.  and  aU  other  m*«.ure«^«»«ary  to  the^sam. 

••'^iIJ^Buieii  larce  pago«  are  filled  erery  week  with  ecientlflo.  phllo- 
«>nhS  andrS^SJugM^tlcles  and oommunlc^tlons  by  the  «bl«2  F^^J- 
?S?i\^-V«  In  th*  muntrr  It  give  all  the  Liberal  newa  and  keeps  lU 
J51Se?ri>^t«Jl  on^uS-St  eeciUal  and  theological  events.  It  iB  the  armory 
J^^  whSHundreJe  draw  their  weapons  la  oougBiuswlth  PH«th^^ 
Vnth*  liberal  oaoers  are  good,  but  The  Tbuth  Seekkb  \b  THE  BEST 
^Vnr  AROEST^n\s  conducted  In  a  broad  and  truly  Liberal  spirit  and 
glTs  er'i-JfoSf  fheilig  uSon  aU  subjects  pertaining  to  vh.  .weUy?  of  "»• 


OPINIONS  BEuARDING  IT. 


human  rac«. 

A  ™in*»rlike  THE  Tbuth  Seekkb  Is  something  more  and  bstt«P  than 
^«  i^^tJ  of  tSh.  Through  It  Its  subscribers  touch  elbows  wlOi  Mch 
J?h^^!Si  reader  knows  that  he  Is  one  of  a  goodly  company  who  find 
SJ^fnrt^d  i^^Sn  m  Its  pages.  If  they  should  meet  each  other  they 
SSSS^eS^ Ukfb~3^^^^^  They hav lived  under  on*  Intellect- 

«-iwJ.tf«it  the  Blow  of  the  same  flreelde,  and  broken  together  the 
bSaS^f  liS  slich  a  Jk^r  IS  to  thousands  a  substitute  lor  the  church.- 
OXOBOK  Chainey,  In  Thi»  World, 

THK  TRUTH  8EMEB,  founded  by  D.  M.  B«mett.  Ifl  to^lay  P«rtiap^« 
•troiSStf^lth  Which  superstition  has  to  contend  and  a  long  future  o£ 
JrSrt  usefulness  is.  we  trust  and  believe,  before  ix^^WintUd,  Cbnn..  Ptcmm. 

There  ouffht  to  be  five  hundred  subscribers  to  The  Tbuth  Seekf.b  m 
this  JSunt?  fust^  rebuke  the  infamous  church  bigoui  who  are  using  force 
iSSSlid  t^)  sup^  Liberalism— ir(»-ttmyton,  ifiiw..  Advo^ 

This  Sterling  and  widely-circulated  rreethought  Journal  has  won  Its 
wardw  l^toile  h^^     of  its  readers.    The  TBura  Seeeeb  is  a  great 
Sge^^^'d  di2sJ?ti  the  most  ««nereus  support  ofthelJbjral  pu^ 
Koent  numbers  received  are  splendid  in  erery  respect.— &m  mmato^ 
Univertt. 

Thx  tbuth  Seekeb  has  gathered  its  reeouroes,  and  will  be  a  stronger, 
t)«tter.  and  brighter  paper  than  ever.— lAlwrol  Lm^im  Man, 

Thx  tbuth  seekeb  has  become  a  necessity  to  the  LlberaJ  oruii*— *■•. 

Address  Tms  Tbuth   Seekeb,  TrvJ!* 

28  Lafayette  Place,  Now  York  City, 


r 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


COLUMBIA   UNIVERSITY   LIBRARIES 

This  book  is  due  on  the  date  indicated  below,  or  at  the 
expiration  of  a  definite  period  after  the  date  of  borrowing,  as 
provided  by  the  library  rules  or  by  special  arrangement  with 
the  Librarian  in  charge. 


OATC  BORROWED 


DATE  DUE 


JUN2  7  '51 


DATE  BORROWED 


DATE  DUC 


C28(2Bl)IOOM 


„4 


Wi 


I'; 


:^W^^^''j^^^. 


W 


M^ 


' 


■%M 


^4-2.1  m^ 


f'M- 


tsti 


h 


m 


::wr7i^^. 


